Types of Poly component Syntactic Units
In view of the above-mentioned drawbacks of the term 'composite sentences', we suggest that composite sentences should be called polycomponent syntactic units. Polycomponent syntactic units, in our opinion., can consist of predicative clauses, non-predicative ' communicatives'. and a combination of non-predicative 'communicatives' and predicative clauses. Accordingly, we draw a distinction between three types of polycomponent syntactic units:
1) polypredicative syntactic units (nojiunpeduKamuenue
cunmaKcmecKue edunuu,bi), e.g.:
When you get off the bus, you'll see a grocery store on the opposite side of the street (Longman Essential Activator);
2) polycommunicative syntactic units
(noJiuKOMMynuKamueHbie cunmaKcuvecKue edunuifbi) > e.g.:
Could you ask her to get back to me? .- Yes, of course (J. Comfort);
3) communicative-predicative syntactic units
{KOMMynuKamueno-npeduKamueHbie cunmaKcunecKue edunuifbi),
e.g.:
Could I have your name? - Yes, it's Oldman (J. Comfort).
As 'communicatives' in polycomponent syntactic units we qualify those non-predicative syntactic units that form a separate sense-group, possess an independent intonation contour, and can be used in an absolute position. Cf.:
Do you have a visa for the United States? — Yes, I do
306
307
Sony, did I step on your foot? (Longman Essential Activator). —* Sorry. Did I step on yourfootl
I hope it's not too early there. — No, not at all (J. Comfort). —> No. Not at all.
Since syntactic units of the type you know, you see have only formal predication, they could be referred to 'communicatives' (for instance, S.V. Andreeva regards them as 'communicatives'). However, they cannot function on their own. That's why we exclude them from 'communicatives' and provisionally refer them to parenthetic predicative clauses, bearing in mind what has been said about their predication, e.g.:
I'm very fond of you, you know (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Classification of Polypredicative Syntactic Units
Polypredicative syntactic units can be further classified according to the type of dependency relations between the constituent clauses. L. Hjelmslev singles out three types of dependency relations: interdependence, determination, and constellation.
Polvpredicative Syntactic Units Built on Interdependence;
In interdependence, one unit presupposes the presence of another, and vice versa. To polypredicative syntactic units with interdependence (or polypredicative syntactic complexes) we refer clauses whose occurrence is predetermined by the valency potential of this or that component in the preceding or (less often) in the following clause.
|
|
|
According to L. Tesniere, only verbs possess valency characteristics. The Tesniere valency theory is still being elaborated. A detailed analysis of polypredicative syntactic complexes, performed by N.V. Proskurina, has shown that the following language units possess valency characteristics in polypredicative syntactic units.
1. Lexical (or notional) verbs, e.g.:
/ doubt if I can afford it (English Course).
308
Why are you not with him? — Because I don't know where^he is (S.Hill).
2. Copular verbs, e.g.:
What is worth (Joins at all is worth doing well (Proverb). This is what frightens me (J. Fowles).
3. Adjectives and adverbs in the comparative degree, e.g.:
In five out of the seven leading industrial nations industrial output is now lower than it was a year aso (S. Greenbaum).
It could happen more quickly than anyone expects (D. Biber et al.).
4. Deictic words, such as pronouns, articles, etc., e.g.:
/ could lead you to the shop where I bought it (D. Biber et al.)-
5. The first components of correlative links, e.g.:
Lara was so excited that she barely touched her food (S. Sheldon).
The less people think, the more they talk (Proverb).
As the call, so the echo (Proverb).
I not only shared a cabin with him and ate three meals a day at the same table, but I could not walk round the deck without his joining me (W.S. Maugham).
They're coming to visit us this year. - When? — Either this month or next month (English Course).
Polvpredicative Syntactic Units Built on Determination
In determination, one unit presupposes the presence of another, but not vice versa. In other words, polypredicative syntactic units with determination are built on the basis of subordination. Subordination is signalled by the actual or potential presence of non-correlative subordinates or w/j-words between the clauses. Subordinators (i.e. subordinate conjunctions) are linking words that introduce dependent clauses. They can consist both of one and several words. Most of multi-word subordinates end in as or that (the latter is often optional), e.g.: as far as, as long as, as soon as, on condition (that), provided/providing (that), supposing (that), now (that), except (that), in order that, so (that), etc.
|
|
|
To polypredicative syntactic units built on subordination we refer only syntactic constructions with clauses that do not make part of the valency patterns of the verbal or nominal component of the
309
matrix clause. They are adverbial clauses and sentential relative clauses, for the occurrence of both is not obligatory for the structural completeness of the matrix clause, although communicatively they are important. Cf.:
When he came out, it was about midnight (S. Sheldon).
What do you say we break for lunch! (L. and J. Soars). —> What do you say if we break for lunch!
I thought you said we were going to have a fire and cook something. - When I get back we will (S. Hill).
Look, Hooper, I've thought of something. I'm going to go and find out if we're near the outside, or anything. - You can't, you'll get lost (S. Hill). —* You can't because you 'II get lost.
What about the insides? You can't eat those parts. - We have to pick off the meat. It doesn't matter about the insides, we won't come to them. - What if it's poisonous? - No fish is poisonous (S. Hill).
The police arrived, after which the situation became calmer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Sentential relative clauses are always syndetic, adverbial clauses are usually syndetic. The number of asyndetic adverbial clauses in polypredicative syntactic units is very small.
Tradition regards polypredicative syntactic units both with interdependence and determination as complex sentences disregarding the different nature of the dependency relations between their clauses. True, Russian linguists nowadays draw a distinction between discrete complex sentences (cJiootcHonodvuneHHbie npednootcemw pacvjieneuHOu cmpyvmypu} and non-discrete complex sentences (cjiootCHonodvuneHHbie npednoyceuuH Hepac^neneHnou cmpyKmypbi) [PyccKaa rpaMMaTHKa-80]. However, the opposition discreteness/non-discreteness is common not only to complex but also to compound sentences (there are, as is well known, both subordinate and coordinate correlative links). That's why we reject the current terms and speak of polypredicative syntactic units with interdependence and determination.
|
|
|
310
Polypredicative Syntactic Units Built on Constellation
In constellation, the units are compatible, but none presupposes the presence of another, hi our opinion, we find constellation in polypredicative syntactic units built on coordination and accumulation.
Coordinate polypredicative syntactic units can be both syndetic and asyndetic. The clauses in syndetic coordinate polypredicative syntactic units are linked by non-correlative, i.e. single-word coordinate conjunctions. The main simple coordinators are and, but, and or, with a core meaning of addition, contrast, and alternative respectively. Or has a negative counterpart nor, which is used after negative clauses.
Nor is far less common than all the other coordinators because negation is less frequent overall than positive forms. However, nor is somewhat more common in fiction than conversation which gives preference to negation by not, e.g.:
The donkeys did not come back, nor did the eleven men, nor did the helicopters (D. Biber et al.).
The positive alternative coordinator or is particularly frequent in academic (scientific) prose because academic discourse invites a consideration of alternative modes of explanation, e.g.:
They may imply the same sequence of uplift, erosion, and subsidence, or they may reflect a fall and rise of global sea level
(D. Biber etal.).
But is more frequent in conversation than the written registers because people tend to highlight contrast and contradiction in dialogue, e.g.:
/ think he will have salad but he doesn't like tomatoes (D. Biber et al.).
The low frequency of but in academic prose may be due in part to the fact that contrast is more often expressed by other means in that register, namely by such forms as although, however, nevertheless, on the other hand, etc.
And is by far the most common coordinator in all the registers. But its distribution, is, at first sight, surprising. It is often supposed that and is especially common in conversation. A study of four major registers: conversation, fiction, newspaper language and academic prose, carried out by the authors of the Longman
|
|
|
311
Grammar of Spoken and Written English, has shown that and is considerably more frequent in academic prose than in conversation. The thing is that they studied not only clause-level coordination, that our attention is focused on now, but also phrase-level coordination. The high degree of phrase-level coordination is responsible for the high overall frequency of and in academic prose. As for clause-level coordination, it is far more frequent in conversation than in academic prose, which is consistent with one of the principles of online production, namely limited planning time in conversation. In conversation, we have to think and speak at the same time. Naturally, we have little chance to plan or elaborate structure as we proceed. That's why we often 'tag on' clauses as an afterthought. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English call it 'the add-on strategy'. Hence, the high frequency of occurrence of the coordinator and with its core meaning of addition, e.g.:
/ don't want a "nice boy-friend", and I don't want to get married (D. Robins).
In asyndetic coordinate polypredicative syntactic units, coordinators are not present, but can readily be inserted. Only those asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units are considered to include coordinate clauses that allow the insertion of a non-correlative (i.e. single-word) coordinator. Cf.:
We starved before; we can starve again (W.S. Maugham). —» We starved before and \ve can starve again.
A disappearing domestic at one end — a cold-blooded murder at the other (A. Christie). —»• A disappearing domestic at one end and a cold-blooded murder at the other,
Clauses linked by accumulation are always asyndetic, and they do not allow the insertion of either a non-correlative coordinator or subordinator. Cf.:
Arthur looked at his watch; it was nine o'clock (E.L. Voynich).
/ was rather hoping you were both planning to go off for the weekend together. - Oh. No. - You're not, are you? - No. Not at all (A. Ayckbourn).
The components of coordinate polypredicative syntactic units are usually structurally homogeneous: two or more finite clauses, 'finite clause representatives', or sentencoids. Cf.:
312
Time had been good to her, and it had stood still for him (S. Sheldon).
Do women smoke? - Some do and some don't (English Lingaphone Course).
He had a lovely smile. Genuine and kind (J. Parsons).
The components of 'accumulative' polypredicative syntactic units can be structurally homogeneous (see the above-given examples) and structurally heterogeneous. Cf.:
Forgive me, a private joke (J. Garner) - a one-member finite clause + a sentencoid.
What did Mrs. Blake say? - Nothing; she laughed (English Course) - a sentencoid + a two-member finite clause.
/ like Brighton. - So do I. - Nice, isn 't it? - Lovely (K. Burke) - a sentencoid + a two-member 'clause representative'.
Coordinate polypredicative syntactic units can be both 'open' and 'closed' [V.A. Beloshapkova]. The number of components in 'open' coordinate polypredicative syntactic units is not limited, and we can always add at least one more. Cf.:
The wind blew, the clouds gathered, the rain fell (Ch. Dickens). -* The wind blew, the clouds gathered, the rain fell, it grew cooler.
'Closed' coordinate polypredicative syntactic units always consist of two components. The second component is usually introduced by the adversative conjunction but, e.g.:
He tried to explain it to Vivien but she was not interested (S. Sheldon).
Accumulative polypredicative syntactic units tend to be 'closed' due to the pragmatic heterogeneity of their components and the absence of both actual and potential links signalling the meaning relationship between them. The closed accumulative structure is common to the so-called disjunctive questions, e.g.:
Nice getting letters, isn't it? (K. Burke).
Accumulative structures comprising repetition are open because one and the same thing can be repeated any number of times. But they usually function as two-part polypredicative syntactic units. Cf.:
Get down, get down (S. Hill).
He couldn 't have been in it. - He was, he was (S. Hill).
313
Taking into consideration that the components of coordinate polyp redicative syntactic units can stand on their own, some English grammarians deny coordinate poly predicative syntactic units the status of a specific syntactic unit [E. Kruisinga; C.T. Onions].
The opposing view is held by Russian linguists. First of all, they stress the punctuation integrity of coordinate po]y predicative syntactic units: although their components can stand on their own, they do not stand on their own. Punctuation provides a substitute for intonation signals. So, one is tempted to draw a conclusion that the coordinated components form an intonation whole, too, i.e. that only the last component is pronounced with a falling tone implying finality, while the non-final components are pronounced with a rising tone implying non-finality. But experiments have shown that in English non-final coordinated components are often pronounced with a terminal falling tone.
At the I3th International Congress of linguists, held in Japan in 1982, it has been stressed that it is not tone, but tempo characteristics that should be regarded as the main formal means of syntactic units organization. At present, there are no data concerning the tempo inside coordinate polypredicative syntactic units. But even a priori one can say that tempo characteristics are highly subjective.
In the second place, coordinated clauses form a semantic whole. The semantic integrity of coordinated clauses manifests itself in the grammatical form, namely in a fixed position of the clauses, e.g.:
His wife suggested going and he agreed eagerly (A. Christie).
If we place the second coordinated clause in the first place, the logical sequence of events will be violated, e.g.:
His wife suggested going and he agreed eagerly. —» *He agreed eagerly and his wife suggested going.
According to A.M. Peshkovsky, the position in a coordinate poiypredicative syntactic unit is of no importance as its components are interchangeable.
In the opinion of D. Crystal, we may reverse the order of coordinated clauses only when the meaning of the actual or potential coordinator and is that of addition, e.g.:
Nobody knows us and we know nobody (A. Christie). —» We know nobody and nobody knows us.
314
Such cases are less numerous than those when the clauses are irreversible because coordinators express a range of meanings, not only simple addition.
The use of parallel constructions also testifies to the coordinated components building up a semantic and structural whole, e.g.:
He has nothing, but he looks everything (O. Wilde).
As for the correlation of phases in the components of coordinate polypredicative syntactic units, B.A. Ilyish is quite right when he says that there is no general rule of their interdependence, although sometimes it is apparent, e.g.:
There had been rain the night before - a spring rain, and the earth smelt of sap and wild grasses (J. Galsworthy).
Following Russian linguists, we regard coordinate polypredicative syntactic structures as a specific subtype of polypredicative syntactic units with constellation.
Asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units that allow the insertion of both a non-correlative subordinator and a non-correlative coordinator are regarded as syncretic polypredicative syntactic units. Cf.:
The doctor came in late; he did not stop to read the telegram (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). —* As the doctor came in late, he did not stop to read the telegram. The doctor came in late and he did not stop to read the telegram.
The components of syncretic polypredicative syntactic units are usually finite clauses.
In the opinion of N. Pospelov, L. Isho, E. Shiryaev and some other linguists, asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units should be studied in themselves, not as variants of polypredicative syntactic units with coordination or subordination because the reconstruction of the 'missing' clause link is highly subjective. Syncretic cases do exist. But as their number is rather small, we find it possible to classify asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units into four groups:
1) coordinate asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units,
2) subordinate asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units, 3) syncretic
asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units, 4) accumulative
polypredicative syntactic units.
In addition to interdependence, determination, and constellation, we single out two more types of dependency relations
315
between clauses in polypredicative syntactic units: zero dependence and mixed dependence.
Polycomponent Syntactic Units Built on Parenthesis
Parenthetic clauses are considered to be grammatically independent of the clause into which they are embedded [V.L. Kaushanskaya et al.j. However, since parenthetic clauses always function as part of the clause into which they are embedded, they cannot be said to have no connection at all with it [B.A. Ilyishj. Of course, this connection is much weaker than interdependence, determination, or even constellation, but its existence is a hard fact. We call it zero dependence. By zero dependence we mean the lowest degree of dependence, not the absence of dependence.
Among polypredicative syntactic units with zero dependence there prevail informative and modal parenthetic clauses. Cf:
/ called to the cook (who was within hearing) to look after the poor girl (W. Collins).
As far as I noticed, she seemed exactly as usual (A. Christie).
Cohesive parenthetic clauses are not many, e.g.:
Trade plays an important role in capitalism as we have seen (E. Mansfield).
The low frequency of cohesive parenthetic clauses is due to the fact that their function is usually performed by parenthetic words and non-clausal combinations of words, such as first(ly), secondly), on the one hand, on the other hand,-etc,, e.g.:
Firstly) he's a cheat, secondly) he's a liar, and thirdfty) he owes me money (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Finally, polypredicative syntactic units are sometimes characterized by interplay of several types of syntactic dependence. We call them mixed polypredicative syntactic units. Cf:
We emailed the manager yesterday, but I don't know if-we 'II get any money back (L. and J. Soars) - constellation (coordination) + interdependence.
And I can't wait to get the baby's room ready. - Tom if it's a boy and Natalie if it's a girl (L. and J. Soars) - constellation (coordination) + determination.
But you see, father (though Mr. Franklin isn 't to blame), he's been mortifying and disappointing for weeks and weeks past; and
316
now this comes on the top of it all! (W. Collins) - constellation (coordination) + zero dependence.
But somehow or other, when I come face to face with the women, my practice (I own) is not comfortable (W. Collins) -determination + zero dependence.
My lady had discovered that I was getting old before I had discovered it myself, and she had come to my cottage to wheedle me (if I may use such an expression) into giving up my hard out-of-door work as bailiff, and taking my ease for the rest of my days as steward in the house (W. Collins) - interdependence + determination + constellation (coordination) + zero dependence.
COMPLICATED SYNTACTIC UNITS
Monopredicative syntactic units and sometimes the components of polypredicative syntactic units can be complicated by secondary predication, isolation, and parenthesis. Cf.:
She could feel her heart beating wildly (S. Sheldon), - A two-member sentence is complicated by bound secondary predication.
Constance was sitting up in bed, the small tea-tray on her knees (A. Bennett). - A two-member sentence is complicated by absolute secondary predication.
At three-twenty, a car stopped at the front gate (R. Lardner). -A two-member sentence is complicated by isolation.
Last but not least, let me introduce Jane, our new accountant (Longman Essential Activator). - A one-member sentence is complicated by parenthesis and isolation.
My lips remained cold and unresponsive, but I felt my eyes brim with tears (D. Robins). - The second component of a coordinate polypredicative syntactic unit is complicated by bound secondary predication.
COMMUNICATIVE SYNTAX
So far, we have examined the construction of sentences in terms of the way in which units (such as subject, predicate, object, adverbial) are brought together to form grammatical sequences, and we have treated the order of such units in terms of positional norms.
317
We shall now look upon the construction of a sentence from the viewpoint of constructing a message.
Historical Background
The communicative analysis of a sentence goes back to the theory of young-grammarian psychologism of the German linguistics of the second half of the 19th century. Its representatives noticed an important detail: the absence of direct correspondence between sentence members and the components of the psychological proposition. According to H. Paul, for instance, any sentence member can function as psychological subject and psychological predicate.
Proceeding from psychological grounds, however, they drew the conclusion that the psychological division of the sentence wholly depends on the will of the speaker. F.F. Fortunatov went so far in overestimating the role of the speaker's will as to state the addressee's inability to decode the speaker's intention.
If it were so, the process of communication would be impossible. In fact, the interlocutor does understand the speaker since there are a lot of devices in the language using which the speaker makes his aim more or less clear to the addressee.
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 1576; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!