Type of Syntactic Connection of the Predicate with the Subject
The next problem that arises in connection with the predicate is the type of its syntactic connection with the subject. Most authors of practical grammars [e.g. M. Ganshina, N. Vasilevskaya; V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors, etc.] think that the English predicate agrees in number with the subject, i.e. when the subject is in the singular, the predicate is bound to be in the singular, and when the subject is in the plural, the predicate is bound to be in the plural as well. With the exception of the verb be, the subject-predicate agreement is limited to the present tense. Cf.:
A bird sings (O. Jespersen).
Birds sing (O. Jespersen).
/ was tired last night (R. Murphy).
We were tired after the journey... (R. Murphy).
This conception, however, is open to criticism. In the first place, the essence of agreement lies in subordination. If the predicate does agree with the subject, then it is not clear why we qualify it as a principal and not as a secondary pan of the sentence. In the second place, agreement is a syntactic device of building up word combinations, and the combination of subject and predicate forms a unit of a higher level - a sentence. And last but not least, the predicate does not always follow the subject in the category of number, e.g.: The family live in Denver (Th. Dreiser), where the predicate is plural, although the subject is singular.
270
From a logical point of view, according to H. Sweet, there is no inconsistency in this, for the now family combines the idea of a single body of people with that of the separate individuals of which it is composed. Whenever the statement is meant to apply to the separate individuals, we make use of a predicate-verb in the plural,
e.g-
The family live in Denver (Th. Dreiser).
A singular predicate-verb, on the other hand, implies that the speaker is not thinking of the individuals, but rather of the whole collective body, e.g.:
Our family was French, on my Father's side (Th. Dreiser).
A.M. Peshkovsky was the first to pay attention to this divergence between formal agreement and agreement in meaning.
|
|
| Grammatical Predicate |
| Grammatical Subject |
| Predicate of Thought |
In the opinion of A.I. Smirnitsky, there is no formal agreement whatsoever. Even in such cases as The boys are getting up (A.S. Hornby), the predicate-verb is in the plural not because the grammatical subject boys is in the plural, but because the underlying logical notion presupposes plurality. The connection between the predicate and the subject, according to A.I. Smirnitsky, is indirect: it is predetermined by their mutual orientation on the subject of thought. Schematically, it can be represented like this:
|
|
|
Note:--------------- symbolizes seeming connection;---- *•
symbolizes real connection.
It follows from the scheme, that the category of number in the predicate-verb (a) is independent of the same category in the grammatical subject (A). Both the grammatical subject and the grammatical predicate render the meaning of number, and in this respect the grammatical predicate is just as independent as the grammatical subject.
271
The only difference, in the opinion of L.S. Barkhudarov, lies in the fact that the meaning of number in the grammatical subject can be realized in two ways:
1) morphologically, i.e. with the help of this or that inflection,
e.g.: boys;
2) semantically, i.e. through the meaning of a certain word or
word combination, e.g.: family.
In the predicate-verb, the meaning of number is always realized morphologically, and when we are confronted with the problem of choosing the right form for the predicate-verb, we are always guided by the semantics of the grammatical subject. L.S. Barkhudarov calls such type of syntactic connection correspondence.
The principal part of one-member sentences has much in common with the predicate of two-member sentences. But as opposed to the predicate of two-member sentences, the principal part of one-member sentences generally comprises person characteristics and lacks correspondence with the nominal component of predication.
14. THE DETERMINER
N.Y. Shvedova was the first to single out the determiner (demepMUHanm) in Russian. To determiners she refers independent sentence modifiers, which give a subjective-objective or adverbial characteristic of the predication as a whole and generally occur in the initial position.
Subjective determiners can hardly be called independent sentence modifiers as they usually realize the nominal component of predication and are consequently structurally obligatory, e.g.:
CtiHUpey noeesjio (K. chmohob).
|
|
|
Subjective determiners are not typical of the analytical English language. Perhaps, in sentencoids of the type Away with you (B. Shaw), the component with you can be regarded as a subjective determiner.
Objective and adverbial determiners modify the predication as a whole and are structurally optional. Objective determiners do exist in English, but they are characterized by a lower frequency of occurrence than in Russian. Cf.:
272
fljut podumejieu mbi onxmb MOJiwuwKa (H.K).
To his parents, his behaviour -was astonishing (G. Leech,
j. Svartvik).
Adverbial determiners (or situational modifiers) <cianyawnu> are common both in Russian and in English. Cf.:
Ha TlytUKUHCKOU nnou^aou npodaeanu iteemu (JI.M. JleoHOB).
Somewhere below, in the dark stand of trees, Rail was sitting
(R. Nelson).
English grammarians mention the ability of some adverbs and prepositional phrases to modify the sentence as a whole, but they do not single them out into a specific part of the sentence. Neither do Russian linguists studying the English language.
15. THE OBJECT Definition of the Object
One of the differential features of the object is its correlation with the subject. Just like the subject, the object is expressed by a noun or a noun equivalent. In the process of the passive transformation, the object usually becomes the subject of a passive construction, e.g.:
Bell invented the telephone (V. Evans). —» The telephone was invented by Bell (V, Evans).
They didn't offer Ann the job (R. Murphy). -* Ann wasn't offered the job (R. Murphy). The job wasn't offered to Ann (R. Murphy).
Nobody ever heard of them again. —> They were never heard of again (W. Deeping).
Perhaps, that is the reason why O. Jespersen defines both the subject and the object as primary words connected with the verb of the sentence. A primary word is not subordinated to any other word. The subject meets this requirement. The object does not, for the object depends on the predicate-verb not only semantically but also formally. The signs of formal dependence are as follows:
1) the use of personal pronouns in the oblique objective case, e.g.:
|
|
|
You surprise me (A. Christie);
273
2) the bound nature of some prepositions in prepositional objects, e.g.:
He insisted on speaking to her (W.S. Maugham).
What is more, O. Jespersen can be reproached with terminological inaccuracy. Defining the object, he points out that it stands in close relation to the verb. But the verbal component of predication is not restricted to the verb. In a number of cases, it also comprises a substantival element. That's why we define the object as a secondary part of the sentence that modifies not the verb, but the verbal component of predication, denoting the person or thing to which the action of the verb passes on. Thus, in the sentence This house is full of painful recollections (A. Sh. Hardy), the prepositional object of painful recollections expands the whole verbal component of predication is full that consists of the copular verb is and the adjective/«//.
Classifications of Objects
The problem of classifying objects is even more debatable. G. Curme takes form as a starting point. He mentions four types of objects:
1) accusative objects,
2) dative objects,
3) genitive objects,
4) prepositional objects.
G. Curme's classification is based on different principles. While drawing a distinction between the first three types of objects (accusative, dative, and genitive), G. Curme applies a morphological criterion; prepositional objects are singled out by him on the basis of a syntactic criterion. The predominant use of a morphological criterion in classifying such syntactic phenomena as objects is hardly justified, especially if we take into consideration that in Modern English neither nouns nor pronouns have special forms for the accusative and dative cases.
H. Poutsma's classification of objects is more consistent in this respect. He makes use of a syntactic criterion only, dividing all objects into two classes:
1) prepositional objects, e.g.:
She smiled at me (D. Robins);
2) non-prepositional objects, e.g.:
Poirot returned the letter (A. Christie).
The formal syntactic criterion, however, does not work either. In the first place, all secondary parts of the sentence, not only objects, can be prepositional and non-prepositional. In the second place, there exist no meaningless forms.
|
|
|
While classifying objects, H. Sweet takes into consideration both meaning and form. He distinguishes:
1) direct objects,
2) indirect objects,
3) prepositional objects.
Thus, in the sentence He showed me his book (R. Lardner), me is an indirect object, book is a direct object; while the combination to my friend in the sentence / wrote a letter to my friend here (A. Christie) is a prepositional object.
The main drawback of H. Sweet's classification lies in the fact that the criteria of meaning and form in it do not interpenetrate. Direct and indirect objects are distinguished primarily on a semantic principle (KoMy? - ¥mo?); prepositional objects are singled out on a purely formal principle.
Having defined the object as a secondary part of the sentence that modifies the verbal component of predication, one should, first of all, take into account the number of objects necessary for making the verbal component of predication communicatively and syntactically independent. Some verbal components of predication require one object; some require two objects. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English speak of monotransitive and ditransitive patterns respectively. Cf.:
/ didn 't say a word (M. Wilson).
Give it to the doctor (S. Ellin).
At the second stage of analysis, semantics comes in. We adopt the semantic classification of objects suggested by I.P. Ivanova, V.V. Burlakova and G.G. Potcheptsov. They draw a distinction between 5 semantic types of objects, each of which has a number of formal characteristics.
274
275
1. Affected object (dononnenue oS^SKma) denoting a person
or thing affected by an action or directly involved in an action.
Affected objects can be non-prepositional and prepositional. Cf:
/ looked but could see nothing (M. Swan).
A cat may look at a king (L. Carroll),
There can be two affected objects in a sentence, e.g.:
Ask him his name (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English).
Two affected objects occur after the following verbs: ask,
answer, take, envy, hear, forgive, etc.
2. Recipient object (donojinenue adpecama) denoting a person
for whose benefit an action is performed or towards whom it is
directed. Recipient objects can also be bom non-prepositional and
prepositional. Cf:
The manager offered David a job (V. Evans).
The manager offered a job to David (V. Evans).
A recipient object cannot be used without an affected object. A non-prepositional recipient object comes before an affected object; a prepositional recipient object comes after an affected object. Cf:
Give me the tickets (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Give the tickets to me (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
3. Agent object (dononnenue dexmejix) denoting the doer of an
action expressed by a verb in the passive voice. It is always
introduced by the preposition by, e.g.:
This house was built by my grandfather (R. Murphy).
He was killed by a heavy stone (M. Swan). <= A heavy stone fell and killed him.>
The occurrence of an agent object in passive sentences is optional. It is used only if it adds information, e.g.:
TV was invented by Baird (V. Evans).
When the agent is unknown, unimportant or obvious, the agent object is omitted, e.g.:
He was arrested (V. Evans). - The agent is obvious: it is the police.
He was murdered (V. Evans). - The agent is unknown.
4. Instrumental object {donojinenue uucmpyMenma} denoting a
tool using which the agent performed a certain action. The
instrumental object is used both in active and passive sentences. It is
always introduced by the preposition with. Cf:
I killed the spider with a newspaper (M. Swan). He was killed with a heavy stone (M. Swan). <= Somebody used a heavy stone to kill him. >
5. Cognate object (podcmeennoe donojinenue} repeating the
meaning of the predicate-verb. A cognate object is either of the
same root as the predicate-verb or is similar to it in meaning. Cf:
I dreamed a strange dream (Ch.J. Fillmore). Tom ran a race (W.L. Chafe).
Cognate objects are used after intransitive verbs. If there is a cognate object in the sentence, other kinds of objects cannot be used
in it.
The noun in a cognate object generally has some sort of modification, which carries the main new information, somewhat like an adverbial, e.g.:
But she died a dreadful death, poor soul... (W. Collins). —* But she died dreadfully, poor soul...
So, one might be tempted to refer combinations of the type a dreadful death to adverbials of manner. We question the validity of such interpretation on two grounds: formal and semantic. Adverbials of manner primarily make use of formations in -ly, e.g.:
/ answered frankly (D. Robins).
The combination of a noun with an adjective in a dependent position is more typical of a predicative and an object. In view of the fact that the intransitive verb died does not require an objective complement, it is logical to suppose that the substantival combination a dreadful death forms with the verb a mixed verbal-nominal predicate. Such predicates do exist, e.g.:
The moon rose m/(M. Ganshina, N. Vasilevskaya).
The application of transformational procedure, however, shows that both parts of a mixed verbal-nominal predicate characterize one and the same subject. Cf.:
The moon rose red. —» When the moon rose, it was red.
The components died and a dreadful death, on the other hand, refer to different subjects. Cf.:
276
277
But she died a dreadful death, poor soul. —> She died. Her death was dreadful.
Consequently, the substantival word combination a dreadful death cannot be regarded as part of a mixed verbal-nominal predicate. Formally (morphologically and positionally), it is an object; semantically, it is closer to adverbials of manner. Constructions with the so-called cognate objects are more emphatic than those with adverbials of manner.
Structurally, objects fall into four types: simple, complex, discrete, and clausal. A simple object is expressed by a single notional word or a non-clausal combination of words. Cf.: His wife killed hint (J. Parsons). 1openedthe front door (D. Robins).
A complex object consists of two components linked by secondary predication, e.g.:
Ididn 'tsee her go (H.E. Bates).
A discrete object also consists of two components, but they are not linked by secondary predication. Both components indicate one and the same phenomenon: the first, a seraantically empty (or dummy) object it, points to it, the second, an infinitive, an infinitival phrase or a complement clause, names it. The dummy object it is always followed by an evaluative adjective, Cf:
/ find it difficult to talk to you about anything serious (M. Swan).
/ think it important that we should keep calm (M. Swan). English grammarians call the dummy object it a preparatory object [M. Swan] or an anticipatory object [D. Biber et al.].
A clausal object is a finite clause possessing primary predication, e.g.:
/ thought you were thirsty (S. Hill).
It is only simple and discrete objects that can be regarded as secondary parts of non-complicated monopredicative syntactic units.
THE ADVERBIAL
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 963; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!