Structural Classification of Attributes
Structurally, attributes fall into three types: simple, complex, and clausal. A simple attribute is expressed by a single word or a non-clausal combination of words. Cf.:
It was a lovely house (J. Parsons).
What is your address in the country*? (O. Wilde).
A complex attribute consists of two components linked by secondary predication, e.g.:
... we must not exclude the possibility of a woman being concerned (A. Christie).
A clausal attribute is a finite clause possessing primary
predication, e.g.:
Kathleen described the scene that followed (D. Robins).
It is only simple attributes that can be regarded as secondary parts of non-complicated monopredicative syntactic units.
DIFFERENTIATION OF SITUATIONAL MODIFIERS AND SECONDARY PARTS OF THE
SENTENCE
The Difference between Situational Modifiers and Attributes
When the attribute is expressed by a prepositional combination, it is often difficult to distinguish it from a situational modifier. O.I. Fleshier gives six transformations which help us define whether we deal with a situational modifier or an attribute.
1. The substitution of the preposition in the construction under examination by the preposition o/or some other preposition typical of attributive relations, for example, the preposition from. Cf.:
292
The expression on his lined face was kindly, sweet and wild (W.S. Maugham). —* The expression of his lined face was kindly,
sweet and wild.
The old couple on the top floor is away for the summer (J. Craig). —* The old couple from the top floor is away for the
summer.
2. The use of the nominal component of the prepositional
combination in the function of a prepositive attribute to the
preceding noun, e.g.:
He glanced at the clock on the mantelpiece... (W. Deeping).
—» He glanced at the mantelpiece clock.
3. The transformation of the prepositional combination into an
attributive participial phrase, e.g.:
He looked at the woman on the sofa (A. Christie). —» He looked at the woman sitting on the sofa.
4. The transformation of the prepositional combination into an
attributive dependent clause, e.g.:
The man beside him laughed (A. Hailey, G. Castle). --> Tne man who was sitting beside him laughed.
5. The use of the noun with the following prepositional
combination in some other position in the sentence, e.g.:
In his room he called the clinic on the Zugersee (F.S. Fitzgerald). —* It is the clinic on the Zugersee that he called
|
|
|
in his room.
6. The use of the prepositional combination at the beginning of
the sentence, before the subject and the predicate, e.g.:
Kitty felt like a schoolgirl in her presence (W.S. Maugham). —*• In her presence Kitty felt like a schoolgirl.
The attribute admits of the first five transformations, or at least some of them, and does not admit of transformation six. The situational modifier, on the other hand, admits only of transformation six and is insusceptible to the first five.
| 293 |
Of course, there exist transitional cases. Thus, in the sentence Perhaps the grass in the other field is better (H. Munro) the prepositional combination in the other field admits not only of attributive transformations but can be also placed before the subject and the predicate, which is typical of situational modifiers: Perhaps in the other field the grass is better.
The Difference between Adverbials and Objects
The problem of differentiating adverbials from objects is also debatable. Thus, both objects and adverbials can be expressed by nouns and prepositional combinations. Cf.:
Tlie committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
I wafted an hour (St. Leacock).
He stretched out on the divan... (P. Abrahams).
K.A. Andreeva makes a list of transformations typical of objects and adverbials. The following transformations help us single out the object.
1. The object of an active construction becomes the subject of
a passive construction, e.g.:
The committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). —> A day in July has been appointed for our case to be heard.
2. The object is an obligatory part of the sentence; it cannot be
omitted without destroying the structural and semantic
completeness of the sentence. That's why the transformation of
reduction is out of the question, e.g.:
The committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). —> *The committee has appointed...
3. To the object one can put questions of the pronominal
character, e.g.:
|
|
|
The committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). —* What has the committee appointed*?
4. The combinability of objects is limited; they can combine
only with objective verbs, i.e. verbs that are followed by some kind
of object.
The adverbial is quite different.
1. As a rule, it cannot be made the subject of a passive
construction:
/ waited an hour (St. Leacock). —* *An hour was waited by me.
2. As opposed to the object, it is an optional member of the
sentence. Hence, the transformation of reduction:
294
1 waited an hour (St. Leacock). —> I waited.
3. One cannot put questions of the pronominal character to it:
I waited an hour (St. Leacock). —» * What did J wait?
4. Its combinability is practically unlimited.
On the other hand, the adverbial has certain peculiarities of its own.
1. One can put question of the adverbial character to it:
/ waited an hour (St. Leacock). —*• How long did I waif?
2. It can be substituted by an adverb proper:
/ waited an hour (St. Leacock). —» / waited long.
3. Sometimes it can be linked by means of coordination with
another adverbial expressed by an adverb proper.
However, even the use of all these criteria leaves a great number of boundary cases. In the first place, it is not every object that can be made the subject of a passive construction, e.g.:
They had Jive children (J. Joyce).
The component five children is traditionally regarded as an object, although the passive transformation *Five children were had by them is out of the question.
In the second place, G.E. Yurchenko has convincingly proved that it is not only objects but also adverbials that can be characterized by obligatory combinability, e.g.: / stepped to the window (T. Chevalier), where the omission of the adverbial to the window generates an ungrammatical construction. Cf.:
/ stepped to the window (T. Chevalier). -+ */ stepped...
In the third place, the criterion of questions is not binding either, since to one and the same part of the sentence one can often put both a pronominal and an adverbial question. Cf.:
|
|
|
He stretched out on the divan.. .(P. Abrahams). —> Where did he stretch oufl What did he stretch out onl
So, the opposition between adverbials and objects can be also neutralized.
Neutralization, according to O.I. Fleshier, takes place because the above-mentioned syntactic relations (situational - attributive, adverbial - objective) sometimes come very close together, and the process of communication goes on uninterrupted without their differentiation. In other words, besides objects, adverbials and attributes, there exist indiscriminate parts of the sentence. They are not many, but their existence is a hard fact.
295
WORD ORDER
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 1055; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!