Classifications of Word Combinations
Word combinations are classified according to different criteria. Semantically, word combinations are classified into free and phraseologically bound. In free word combinations, the components retain their original lexical meaning, e.g.:
(There was) a long pause (S. Sheldon).
Free word combinations are made up in speech for each given occasion.
In phraseologically bound word combinations, one or both components weaken or lose their original lexical meaning, e.g.:
a lame duck ~ a person or enterprise that is not a success and has to be helped;
a rainy day -~ a time of financial hardship;
a square meal ~ a meal which offers enough good food to satisfy one.
Phraseologically bound word combinations cannot be freely made up in speech. They are reproduced in speech as ready-made units which are semantically and functionally closer to words than to word combinations.
Morphologically, word combinations are classified in accordance with the part-of-speech nature of the head. The first morphological classification was suggested by B. Jonson in the 17 century. He singled out noun and verb word combinations.
210
B. Jonson's morphological classification is being elaborated nowadays. L.S. Barkhudarov, for instance, distinguishes:
1) noun word combinations, e.g.:
nice apples (BBC London Course);
2) verb word combinations, e.g.:
saw him (E. Blyton);
3) adjective word combinations, e.g.:
perfectly delightful (O. Wilde);
4) adverb word combinations, e.g.:
perfectly well (O, Wilde);
5) pronoun word combinations, e.g.:
something nice (BBC London Course).
Although the head in a word combination can be expressed practically by any notional part of speech, it is only noun and verb word combinations that are characterized by a high frequency of
occurrence.
The part-of-speech nature of the adjunct should be taken into consideration, too. In this case, one speaks of noun-adjective word combinations, e.g.: rich people (N. Monsarrat), verb-noun word combinations, e.g.: wanted money (M. Gilbert), etc.
In the third place, word combinations are classified according to the number of their components into simple and complex. Simple word combinations always comprise two components: the head and an adjunct, e.g.:
told me (A. Ayckbourn).
The binary pattern constitutes the language model of word combination. But in speech triple, quadruple and more complex patterns of word combinations are sometimes found, which is generally the result of the head or adjunct expansion in the sentence, e.g.: terribly cold weather (O. Jespersen), where the adjunct cold is expanded by means of terribly.
|
|
|
Sometimes the word combination as a whole is expanded, e.g.: a private cigarette case (O. Wilde).
In the fourth place, word combinations are classified according to the syntactic relations between the head and the adjunct. Here one distinguishes attributive word combinations, e.g.: an old man (C. Hare); objective word combinations, e.g.: sold cats (L-E. Reeve); and word combinations with qualitative adverbials, e.g.: ran swiftly (W. Faulkner). Temporal and causal syntactic
211
relations are not characteristic of the word combination, for they do not build up an integral whole with the head and should be regarded as parts of sentences rather than of word combinations, e.g.:
He paused a moment (St. Leacock).
In the fifth place, word combinations are classified according to the predetermined or free nature of the adjunct. Word combinations based on agreement and strong government are generally predetermined; word combinations based on weak government and adjoinment are generally free.
In the sixth place, word combinations are classified according to the obligatory or optional occurrence of the adjunct. Word combinations based on strong government are usually obligatory; word combinations based on agreement and adjoinment are mostly optional.
Word Order in Word Combinations
Each type of word combination is characterized by a specific word order. Preposition of the adjunct is typical of word combinations with agreement and the adjoinment of attributes; postposition of the adjunct is found in word combinations with government; the place of an adjunct in word combinations with adjoinment is more free. The violation of the word order in word combinations takes place only in sentences for the sake of increasing or decreasing the communicative value of one of its components.
The word, word form, and word combination are potentially non-predicative syntactic units, although, as O. Jespersen rightly points out, nouns in themselves sometimes contain elements of predication, e.g.:
on account of her pride <= because she was proud> (O. Jespersen).
|
|
|
7 saw the King's arrival (O. Jespersen).
The dog's barking was heard all over the place (O. Jespersen).
A clause is a potentially predicative syntactic unit.
212
4. ESSENCE OF PREDICATION
The essence of predication consists in establishing the relationship between the content of the clause and reality. Predication is realized in the grammatical categories of objective modality, tense (in the case of real modality), and person [V.V. VinogradovJ.
The predicative category of person (first, second, third) finds its expression either in the inflection of the verbal component (e.g. the inflection -s signals the third person singular in the present indefinite) or in the nominal component. When the nominal component is expressed by a personal pronoun, it serves as a lexical exponent of the predicative category of person. When the nominal component is expressed by a noun or a pronoun that does not distinguish persons, they serve as onomaseological exponents of the third person, common to the class of things [E. Krivchenko].
The predicative categories of objective modality and tense find their expression in the verbal component of predication. According to G.A. Zolotova, there are two types of objective modality: real and non-real. Objective modality is expressed by means of the category of mood. The indicative mood renders the meaning of real modality,
I'm waiting, Mrs. Page (A. Cronin).
The imperative mood and the conjunctive mood realize the meaning of non-real modality, e.g.:
Shut the door! (J. Irving).
/ would have seen him. There's not a soul in sight (W. Faulkner).
In the case of real modality, tense characteristics are relevant, too[A.I. Smirnitsky]. Cf.:
/ want to talk to you (M. Brand) - present tense.
He lit the gas and sat down (Th. Dreiser) - past tense.
I'll call you tomorrow (B. Gutcheon) - future tense.
Since the predicative category of person in analytical English generally finds its expression not in the verbal, but in the nominal component, most English clauses contain a subject and a predicate. To render the predicative categories of modality, tense, and (sometimes) person, the predicate must always contain a finite form
|
|
|
213
of the verb. That's why English grammarians call subject-predicate clauses finite clauses.
FINITE DEPENDENT CLAUSES
Finite clauses can be dependent and independent. A finite dependent clause is a clause that is embedded in a larger structure as a clause element or as part of a clause element. In traditional grammar, finite dependent clauses are called subordinate clauses.
Different classifications of finite dependent clauses have been put forth: 1) morphological, 2) syntactic, 3) formal, 4) functional, 5) structural-semantic.
Morphological Classification
The authors of the morphological classification identify finite dependent clauses with parts of speech. C.E. Eckersley, for instance, speaks of noun clauses, adjective clauses, and adverb clauses. A noun finite dependent clause, in his opinion, does the work of a noun, i.e. performs the functions of subject, subject predicative, and object typical of nouns, e.g.:
What I gave you now will bring joy (C.S. Lewis) - subject clause.
This is what I call living (K. Chopin) - subject predicative clause.
He had known that she would refuse (A. Cronin) - object clause.
An adjective clause does the work of an adjective, i.e. performs the function of an attribute typical of adjectives, e.g.:
Did you see those two women who just went into the hotel? (A. Christie).
An adverb clause does the work of an adverb, i.e. performs the function of an adverbial typical of adverbs, e.g.:
When I woke I looked around (E. Hemingway).
Finite dependent clauses and parts of speech resemble each other functionally. But this kind of similarity, in the opinion of B.A. Ilyish, cannot be regarded as sufficient grounds for classifying finite dependent clauses according to parts of speech. Finite dependent clauses possess predication. As for parts of speech, they
214
are non-predicative units. One can never understand the essence of a predicative construction through a non-predicative phenomenon.
Syntactic Classification
The authors of the syntactic classification are guided by the syntactic function that finite dependent clauses perform in the matrix clause. (A matrix clause is a clause that a dependent clause is inserted into. S. Greenbaum calls it a host clause. The traditional term for a matrix clause is a main clause.). The syntactic principle was first suggested by F.I. Buslaev. This classification has been current for over a hundred years all over the world. Nowadays, it is widely used, too.
|
|
|
Finite dependent clauses function in the matrix clause as subject, subject predicative, object, attribute, and adverbial. Subject, subject predicative, and object clauses are often called eompjement clauses because they are used to complete the meaning relationship of a verb, either lexical or copular. There are two major structural types of finite complement clauses: thai-clauses and w/io-clauses. The complementizer that is characterized by a higher frequency of occurrence than the complementizer who.
The position of complement clauses in analytical English is predetermined grammatically: subject complement clauses - before the predicate-verb, object complement clauses - after the predicate-verb, subject predicative clauses - after the copular verb in the matrix clause. Cf:
What is done by night appears by day (Proverb) - subject clause.
I don't know what came over me (S. Sheldon) - object clause.
The great thing is that we are enjoying ourselves (A. Christie) - subject predicative clause.
However, in actual use subject complement clauses rarely occur in the pre-predicate position. The dummy subject it is usually used in the ordinary subject position, and the subject complement clause is moved outside its normal position. The effect is said to be one of extraposition. Cf.:
215
What you say doesn't matter (D. Crystal). - The subject clause is in its common initial position.
It doesn 't matter what you say (D. Crystal). - The subject clause is in extraposition.
An object complement clause can also occur in extraposition after the dummy object it. Normally, this only happens when there is an adjective connected with the dummy object it, e.g.:
George made it clear that he disagreed (M. Swan).
/ think it important that we should keep calm (M. Swan).
Complement clauses are closely integrated with the matrix clause in which they are embedded. They cannot normally be left out without injuring the structure of the matrix clause. Their freedom of movement is limited (apart from extraposition).
4dye?'feial.c!ause.s. are mostly optional and have some freedom of positioning: both initial and final placement are common. Adverbial clauses are regularly marked by a subordinator indicating their semantic relationship to the matrix clause. The following semantic types of adverbial clauses are generally singled out.
1. Place Clauses. They refer to position or direction. The most
common place subordinators are where and wherever, e.g.:
You may park your car where there is a parking sign (R.A. Close).
He seems to make friends wherever he goes (Longman Language Activator).
2. Temporal Clauses. They show whether the situation in the
matrix clause occurred before that of the temporal clause, at the
same time, or at a later time. The most common temporal
subordinators are after, before, since, until, and when, e.g.:
He looked up when I came (G. Jones).
3. Conditional Clauses. They state the condition that is
necessary for the realization of the action expressed in the matrix
clause. The most common conditional subordinators are //(positive
condition) and unless (negative condition: 'if not'), e.g.:
If you -wait a minute I will light a match (W.S. Maugham). You won't get back unless you start now (G. Greene),
4. Concessive Clauses. They indicate that the situation in the
matrix clause is unexpected in view of what is said in the concessive
clause. The most common concessive subordinators are though and
although, e.g.:
216
Although my car is very old, it still runs very well (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
5. Reason Clauses. They express such notions as reason
(reason is something which explains or excuses an action) and cause
(cause is something which produces a result) for what is conveyed
in the matrix clause. The most common reason subordinators are
because, as, and since, e.g.:
Johnny Brooklyn was my friend because we had been brought up together (W. Saroyan).
6. Purpose Clauses. They state the purpose of the action
expressed in the matrix clause. The most common purpose
subordinators are so that and in order that (the second is more
formal), e.g.:
She's studying English at night school so that she can go to university (Longman Language Activator).
He sold it in order that he might live more comfortably (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
7. Result Clauses. They refer to a situation that is or was the
result of the situation described in the matrix clause. The most
common result subordinators are 50 and so that (the second is more
formal), e.g.:
We planted many shrubs, so (that) the garden soon looked
beautiful (R. Quirk et al).
8. Manner Clauses. They refer to the manner of the action
expressed by the verb. The most common manner subordinator is
as, e.g.:
Do as I say (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
9. Comparison Clauses. They involve a comparison with what
is conveyed in the matrix clause. The most common comparison
subordinators are as and than, e.g.:
He is not as old as me (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
You 're younger than Iam(G. Greene).
10. Proportion Clauses. They also involve comparison. The
most common proportion subordinators are as and the fronted
correlative the ... the in combination with adjectives in the
comparative degree, e.g.:
The harder he worked, the happier he felt (R. Quirk et al.).
217
Attributive. Clauses. English scholars usually call them relative clauses. The classification of relative clauses goes through two stages. At the first stage, relative clauses are classified according to the nature of their antecedent. A distinction is drawn between nominal and sentential relative clauses. The antecedent of a nominal relative clause is a noun or noun phrase in the preceding matrix clause. The antecedent of a sentential relative clause is the whole preceding matrix clause. Cf.:
He showed me a photo that upset me (M Swan).
He tore up my photo, which upset me (M. Swan).
In the first case, it was the photo that was upsetting; the relative clause just refers to this noun. In the second case, it was not the photo that was upsetting, but the fact that somebody tore it up. The whole matrix clause He tore up my photo is the antecedent of the relative clause which upset me.
At the second stage, relative clauses are classified into restrictive (defining) and non-restrictive (non-defining) in accordance with the meaning intended by the speaker or writer. A restrictive relative clause identifies the antecedent. For instance, in Is that the woman who wants to buy your car? (M, Swan), the relative clause who wants to buy your car tells us which woman is meant A non-restrictive relative clause does not identify the antecedent but gives additional information about it. For instance, in I've just met that Mrs. Smith-Perkins, who wants to buy your car (M. Swan) the identity of the woman is already known (Mrs. Smith-Perkins), and the relative clause who wants to buy your car just gives additional information about her.
Restrictive and non-restrictive clauses differ in a number of respects: the type of antecedent, the choice of relativizers, intonation and punctuation characteristics, etc. Antecedents expressed by common nouns can take both restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Proper nouns are generally not modified restrictively, since they are identified uniquely. They combine with restrictive relative clauses only when some kind of specification is needed, e.g.:
It wasn't the Charlie he had known ... (C. Wood).
In the second place, restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses make use of different relativizers. (Relativizers are relative pronouns — which, who, whom, whose, that; and relative adverbs -
where, when, why), fffc-relative pronouns, such as which and who, are the most often used relativizers with non-restrictive clauses. Who usually occurs with animate head nouns, which - with inanimate head nouns. Cf.:
/ discussed if with my brother, who is a lawyer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
The train, which takes only two hours to get there, is quicker than the bus, which takes three (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Restrictive relative clauses may also be introduced by who and •which, e.g.:
A postman is a man who delivers letters (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Did you see the letter which came today? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
But they are often substituted by that, especially in a conversational style, e.g.:
I've lost the bananas that I bought this morning (M. Swan).
The relativizer may be omitted from restrictive clauses if it is not the subject of the clause. In such cases, it is usual to speak of an potential relativizer, e.g.:
I've lost the bananas I bought this morning (M. Swan).
The reiativizer whom in restrictive clauses is unusual: we either leave it out or use that instead, e.g.:
There's the man (that) we met in the pub last night (M. Swan).
The relativizer whom is necessary only after a preposition, e.g.:
The people with whom he worked regarded him as eccentric (M. Swan).
In conversational English, however, it is much more common to put prepositions at the end and to leave out the relativizer, e.g.:
The people he worked with thought that he was a bit strange (M. Swan),
In non-restrictive clauses, the relativizer whom is used in a formal style, e.g.:
This is Mr. Perkins, whom you met at the sales conference (M. Swan).
219
The relativizer whose is typically used to mark a possessive relationship between a human head noun and some other noun phrase, e.g.:
When I looked through the window I saw a girl whose beauty took my breath away (M. Swan).
But sometimes the relativizer whose can be used to mark other genitive relationships with completely inanimate, sometimes abstract, head nouns, e.g.:
In Wasdale there is a mysterious dark lake, whose depth has never been measured (M. Swan).
It was a meeting whose importance I did not realize at the time (M. Swan).
The relativizer whose introduces both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. Cf.:
That's the man whose house was burned down (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - restrictive clause,
This is Felicity, whose sister you met last week (M. Swan) -non-restrictive clause.
The relativizers where, when, and -why can also introduce both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, but they usually occur at the head of restrictive clauses. The relativizer where is generally used after place head nouns., the relativizer when - after time head nouns, the relativizer why- after the head noun reason. Cf.:
This is the buildins where I work (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
That summer marked the time when their carefree childhood really ended (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
You are the reason why I left school (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Relative clauses with the head noun time are often used with a potential relativizer. Cf:
By the_tirrie you receive the letter 1 will be on my way home (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
It's time they paid the money back (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
You say that every time you come in this door (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
In the third place, restrictive and non-restrictive clauses possess different phonetic and punctuation characteristics.
220
Restrictive clauses are not usually separated from the matrix clause in any way- In speech, there is no pause; in writing, commas are not • used. As for non-restrictive clauses, they are often separated from the matrix clause by pauses or intonation changes in speech and by commas in writing.
The fourth point of difference concerns the nature of their structural integration with the matrix clause. Restrictive clauses are closely integrated with the matrix clause in which they are embedded and cannot be left out. Non-restrictive clauses are not structurally integrated with the matrix clause and can easily be left out. Although the omission of non-restrictive clauses leaves the matrix clause structurally complete, it does bring about a certain change in its meaning: it becomes less informative.
Nominal relative clauses can be restrictive and non-restrictive; sentential relative clauses are always non-restrictive.
Although finite dependent clauses are functionally similar to parts of simple independent clauses, they are not identical with them. As opposed to parts of simple independent clauses, finite dependent clauses possess predication. That's why they express our thoughts in a more complete, a more detailed manner. A member of a simple independent clause is like a picture; it merely names this or that phenomenon, its quality, or action. A finite dependent clause is like a drama or process. It presents everything in its development.
Formal Classification
The authors of the formal classification take into consideration the way in which finite dependent clauses are joined to matrix clauses. Thus, A.M. Peshkovsky draws a distinction between syndetic and asyndetic finite dependent clauses. Syndetic finite dependent clauses are introduced by explicit subordinates; asyndetic finite dependent clauses are introduced by potential subordinators. The following finite dependent clauses are usually syndetic: subject, subject predicative, non-restrictive relative, restrictive relative when the subordinator performs the function of the subject in the clause, and adverbial. Object clauses and restrictive relative clauses whose subordinator is not the subject of tiie clause can be both syndetic and asyndetic. In a formal style, they are usually syndetic, in conversational English - asyndetic.
221
Functional Classification
R. Long has worked out a functional classification of finite dependent clauses into declarative and interrogative. As a matter of fact, the classification is not functional, but structural because it is based on the structural peculiarities of the clauses under examination. Thus, to declarative R. Long refers finite dependent clauses that are built on the model: 'subject + predicate verb + object + adverbial', with the possible introduction of that at the head, e.g.:
I wish I could get a word with him alone (C.S. Lewis).
I saw at once that he was dead (A. Christie).
Interrogative finite dependent clauses, in his opinion, are built on the same model as declarative clauses but are introduced by one of the wfc-words that are used to form questions, e.g.:
He did not finish what he was going to say (W,S. Maugham). <Cf.: What was he going to say?>
The thing that raises doubts here is that R. Long includes into this group also clauses with though, as, once, unless, -whether, if, and -while at the head, in spite of the fact that they never form direct questions, although some of them (e.g. whether, if} can introduce indirect questions, e.g.:
Even though 1 didn't understand a -word, I kept smiling (M. Swan).
He was as old as I am (H,E. Bates).
Once she arrives, we can start (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Unless the government agrees to give extra money, the theatre will have to close (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
The man who answered the door was not sure whether Miss Verinder was at home or not (W. Collins).
/ don't know iff can help you (M. Swan).
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 7916; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!