NON-PREDICATIVE SYNTACTIC UNITS
'Commuicatives' are characterized by semantic, communicative, and syntactic indivisibility. Their semantic integrity manifests itself in the lack of motivation (the meaning of 'communicatives' cannot be deduced from the meanings of their components); the communicative unity - in the impossibility to differentiate between the theme (the starting point of the utterance) and the rheme (the part of the utterance communicating information about the theme); their syntactic indiscreteness - in the inapplicability of the model of parts of the sentence ('communicatives' cannot be analyzed in terms of parts of the sentence). Cf.:
Have you seen him since that night? - No (I. Shaw).
But fortunately the -weather forecast is OK for this week. -Great (P. Viney).
TYPES OF PREDICATIVE SYNTACTIC UNITS
At the second stage, we identity predicative syntactic units. Predicative syntactic units are heterogeneous. There are two major types of predicative syntactic units: sentences and sentence-ids.
Sentences
The sentence is probably the most familiar of all grammatical terms. We are introduced to it in our early school years, if not before. It might therefore be thought that sentences are easy things to identify and define. The opposite turns out to be the case.
The traditional definition of the sentence states that the sentence expresses a complete thought. The trouble with this definition is that it requires us to know what a complete thought is. Up to now, nobody has given a satisfactory answer to this question. So, traditional grammar tries to define one unknown notion in terms of another unknown notion.
Structural linguists try to define the sentence formally. Thus, L. Bloomfield writes, 'A sentence is an independent linguistic form, not included by virtue of any grammatical construction in any larger linguistic form.'
226
In general, formal criteria are the least vulnerable. But the question arises how to define whether the form under examination is independent or whether it is included in some larger structure. In the opinion of Ch. Fries, conjunctions can be regarded as signs of inclusion. They really can, e.g.:
I do it because I like it (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English).
/ work in an office, and I do other work as well (I. Murdoch).
But sometimes there are no conjunctions, and still a form is felt to make part of another, e.g.:
I know he will never return (J. Fowles).
/ work, I have to sleep (T. Capote).
Other linguists think that punctuation helps us draw a distinction between a sentence and its parts. The criterion of punctuation is quite lucid, of course, but it is applicable only to written texts.
|
|
|
Trying to give a formal definition of the sentence, A.H. Marckwardt turns to such phonetic characteristics as pitch and pause. Phonetic devices play an important role in identifying sentences. However, they are found only in oral speech (punctuation gives a poor representation of phonetic devices), and even there they are rather subjective, varying from speaker to speaker.
A. Gardiner and Y.M. Skrebnev are of opinion that the only relevant feature of the sentence is its ability to serve the purpose of communication, i.e. they view the sentence as a unit of communication.
The communicative function does differentiate the sentence from the phoneme, the morpheme, the word, the word form, and the word combination. But the communicative function cannot be regarded as a distinguishing feature of the sentence either, for it is also common to units larger than the sentence and to language as a whole.
We think it necessary to elucidate the communicative definition of the sentence by reference to such a structural characteristic as predication. Formal characteristics are of great importance because there are no formless meanings. Sentences possess independent explicit predication. Explicit predication presupposes the presence of morphological exponents of the predicative categories of modality and tense and morphological,
227
lexical, or onomaseological exponents of the predicative category of person. Explicit predication is considered to be independent when it has no introductory subordinates
Sentencoids
'Sentencoid' is a comparatively new term in linguistics. By sentencoids we mean syntactic units that lack the structure of an independent finite clause. In Russian traditional grammar, they are usually called 'incomplete sentences' (nenojinue npedjioofcenux\ in English and American linguistics - 'elliptical sentences' [G.L. Kittredge, F.E. Farley; W.O. Birk; R. Gunter], 'minor sentences' [L. Bloomfield; Ch. Hockett; D. Crystal], or 'sentence fragments' [J.L. Morgan; V. McClelland, J.D. Reynolds, M.L. SteeL I. Guilloryj.
|
|
|
The term 'minor sentences' might lead one to the conclusion that they are of secondary importance to conventional (or major) sentences. In written language, it is really so. According to D.A. Conlin and G.R. Herman, minor sentences in written English constitute only 1 per cent. But in everyday conversation the so-called minor sentences are as important as major sentences.
The terms 'incomplete sentences', 'elliptical sentences', and 'sentence fragments' emphasize their structural deficiency. Short 'fragmentary' units really do not have the structure of independent finite clauses. But does it testify to their structural deficiency? We think not. They are used mainly in conversation. Conversation is typically carried out in face-to-face interaction with others. Speakers usually share a lot of background knowledge. Because it relies on situation and context for meaning, conversation can do without the syntactic elaboration that is found in written language. Consistent with this factor of syntactic non-elaboration, conversation has a very high frequency of 'fragmentary' syntactic units that are as informative in conversation as independent finite clauses (or sentences).
Since 'fragmentary' syntactic units are structurally different from sentences, they should not be called sentences. J.R. Aiken and M. Bryant suggested that they should be called 'non-sentences'. In our opinion, the term is not a happy one because it only tells us that 'fragmentary' syntactic units are not sentences, but it does not tell
228
us what they are. We think the term 'sentencoids' is better. By using it, we stress that, on the one hand, sentencoids are different from sentences, on the other hand, that they are similar to them (the suffix -oid means 'similar to').
They are different from sentences in the sense that they lack independent explicit predication. At the same time, they are similar to sentences because, just like sentences, they belong to communication rendering syntactic units. W.O. Birk writes apropos of this, 'By actual structure, of course, they are not sentences... By usage, though, they are sentences...'
|
|
|
The absence of independent explicit predication does not mean that sentencoids are non-predicative syntactic units. There are three major predicative types of sentencoids.
1. Sentencoids that have dependent explicit predication, e.g.:
I have no desire to disappoint you. - Why should you disappoint me? - Because Pm not twenty-five (J. Collins).
The sentencoid Because I'm not twenty-five is marked for real modality, present tense, and the first person. So, its predication is explicit. The sign of dependence is the subordinator because.
2. Sentencoids having implicit predication that becomes clear
from the context or situation (we might use the abbreviation
'consituation'), e.g.:
What school do you go to? - Boarding school (S. Hill).
The sentencoid Boarding school is not explicitly marked for any predicative category, but we can infer from the consituation that the sentencoid refers to real modality, present tense, and first person.
3. Sentencoids that are characterized by a fusion of explicit
and implicit predication, e.g.:
Twilight (J. Joyce).
A nice moon, that (Th. Dreiser).
What's got into you? - Nothing (A. Ayckbourn).
In all these examples, the predicative category of the third person is explicit, and the predicative categories of real modality and present tense are consituationally bound (or implicit).
The implicit predicative categories of modality and tense in sentencoids can be represented by two kinds of syncretic zero exponents: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Sentencoids with
229
paradigmatic zeros, just like sentences, realize their communicative potential even when taken in isolation . Cf.:
The afternoon of a winter''s day (G. Gordon).
You sure about that? (J. Collins).
Silence in the court! (G. Gordon).
Just a minute (E. Hemingway).
Out with you (B. Shaw).
What a strange place! (I. Murdoch).
Sentencoids with syntagmatic zeros outside the consituation realize only the naming functions of their constituents. Cf.:
Is it any use asking you anything, Poirot? - Not at this moment (A. Christie).
They want to stay. — How long for? - They didn 't .say (H. Pinter).
|
|
|
Tomato juice. - Yes, sir (M. Brand).
'Sentence Representatives'
Somewhat apart stand the so-called 'sentence representatives' (penpesenmanmu npednocHcenuu) that are used to avoid the repetition of the notional (or lexical) verb and the words that follow it, e.g.:
Why don 'tyou run away then? -1 did (S. Hill).
They have some features in common with sentences and sentencoids and some features that mark them off as a specific syntactic unit. Like sentences, they have independent explicit predication. Like sentencoids with syntagmatic zeros and sentencoids that have dependent explicit predication, they become communicative units only within a certain consituation. Outside the consituation, they lack not only the communicative function, like the above-mentioned sentencoids, but also the naming function because they usually consist of a personal pronoun or some other deictic element and an auxiliary, modal, or copular verb. Cf.:
You must have loved him a lot. - / did (S. Sheldon).
Help me. -1 can't (A. Wesker).
Who is the teacher, you or I? - You are (Lingaphone English Course).
2 We speak here of relative communicarive independence of sentences and senieacoids with paradigmatic zeros. Their true communicative independence they gain only in the consituation.
230
Extended 'sentence representatives' can include an attribute if the nominal component of predication is expressed by a noun and an adverbial. But extended 'sentence representatives' are characterized by a low frequency of occurrence. Cf.:
You want to save money? - I never did in my life (T. Williams).
English grammarians usually regard 'sentence representatives* as elliptical sentences [D. Biber, S. Conrad, G. Leech], There is a grain of truth in their conception, for the omitted part can easily be restored from the context, e.g.:
Help me. -1 can't (A. Wesker) —»/ can *t help you.
But if we do restore it, we get a syntactic unit typical of written speech. Conversational English has a grammar of its own. That's why its grammatical phenomena should be studied in themselves.
'Clause Representatives'
In addition to 'sentence representatives', there are 'clause representatives' (penpesenmanmbi KJiays) in English that have independent or (less often) dependent explicit predication and always make part of larger syntactic units, e.g.:
I married him, didnV1? - Oh, yes, you did (J. Osborne).
Why can't they see behind them? ~ Because they can't that's why (A. Ayckbourn).
| OF
 Мы поможем в написании ваших работ! |