The Conception of V. Mathesius
It is V. Mathesius, a representative of the Prague linguistic school, who has put the problem on a linguistic basis. Having singled out in the communicative structure of the sentence two components: the communicative basis (that which is known or at least obvious in the given situation) and the communicative nucleus (that which conveys a new piece of information), V. Mathesius, at the same time, dwells on such linguistic means of their expression as word order and intonation.
The communicative basis (CB), as a rule, occupies the initial position; the communicative nucleus (CN) comes after it, e.g.:
The shop was very quiet (J. Joyce).
CB CN
318
V. Mathesius calls it objective word order because it fully corresponds to the norms of logical thinking: from the known to the unknown.
The inverse word order 'communicative nucleus -communicative basis' is called by him subjective word order. Being immensely interested in the communicative nucleus of the sentence, the speaker violates the logical sequence 'communicative basis -communicative nucleus' and puts the communicative nucleus in the emphatic first place, e.g.:
Happy at Moor House I was... (Ch. Bronte"). CN
Word order plays an important role in the domain of written language. Spoken language avails itself of a specific means for differentiating the communicative basis and the communicative nucleus, namely the logical stress. As a rule, the logical stress marks off the communicative nucleus. I.C. Ward writes apropos of this, 'Where it is desired to emphasize one idea above others in a sentence, the word expressing that idea receives an extra amount of stress', e.g.:
Dear me, you are smart! -lam always smartl (O. Wilde).
But the conception of V. Mathesius is not devoid of weak points either. The main drawback lies in the fact that V. Mathesius opposes communicative and structural sentence analyses and willy-nilly does away with the problem of their interrelation.
This drawback is overcome by Russian linguists. They side with V. Mathesius in distinguishing structural and communicative analyses of the sentence because the first studies the structure of the sentence; and the second examines this structure with regard to the actual situation.
But they think that despite being essentially different, the communicative and the structural aspects of the sentence are interdependent. Thus, K.G. Krushelnitskaya writes that there are no specific elements in the sentence, distinct from the so-called parts of the sentence, which render its communicative task. Czech linguists nowadays do not disjoin the two structures either.
|
|
|
The binary principle of communicative sentence analysis, put forth by V. Mathesius, is followed by many linguists, though they
319
are still at variance as to the terms. We find the terms 'theme -rheme', introduced by the German scholar K. Boost and widely used by Czech linguists now, to be most appropriate because they possess terminological accuracy. Both terms are derived from Greek and are parallel to each other. The term 'theme' comes from the Greek root the- and means that which is set or established. The term 'rheme' is derived from the Greek root rhe- and means that which is said or told about that which was set or established before. These terms are also convenient because adjectives and verbs are easily derived from them; thematic, thematize; rhematic, rhematize.
The Conception ofj. Firbas
J. Firbas, however, is of opinion that the theme and the rheme are not the only components of the communicative structure of the sentence. Having drawn our attention to the fact that linguistic communication is not a static but a dynamic phenomenon, J. Firbas attempts to develop the concept of communicative dynamism. By communicative dynamism he understands the extent to which the sentence element contributes to the development of the communication, to which it 'pushes' the communication forward, so to speak. All linguistic elements, as long as they convey some meaning, carry communicative dynamism. Those sentence elements that carry the lowest degree of communicative dynamism constitute the theme. Those sentence elements that carry the highest degree of communicative dynamism constitute the rheme. In addition to the theme and the rheme, there are transitional elements, which possess a higher degree of communicative dynamism than the theme but a lower degree of communicative dynamism than the rheme. J. Firbas rejects the binary approach to communicative sentence analysis and introduces a three-element principle 'theme (T) - transition (Tr) -rheme (R)', e.g.:
The air was light (Th. Dreiser). T Tr R
|
|
|
But even J. Firbas cannot help seeing that between the comparatively least important elements, i.e. the theme proper, and the comparatively most important elements, i.e. the rheme proper,
320
there is a long gamut of varying degrees of communicative dynamism which sometimes makes it extremely difficult to draw a distinction between the transition and the theme, on the one hand, and transition and the rheme, on the other.
Difficult in transcribed texts, analyzed by J. Firbas, the isolation of the transition in written texts is generally simply impossible, hi view if this, it seems more logical to represent the communicative structure of the sentence as a binary formation including a theme and a rheme.
Most sentences are communicatively two-member. Communicatively one-member sentences are few. Since the process of communication presupposes an exchange of new information, communicatively one-member sentences are always rhematic. They usually occur at the beginning of the narration, where nothing can be already familiar as nothing has preceded it, e.g.:
A mountain brook ran through a little village (F.R. Stockton).
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit (J. Tolkien).
Once upon a time there was a river which was made of words (D. Bisset).
As opposed to sentences, most sentencoids, namely sentencoids with implicit predication, are communicatively one-member, e.g.:
Where did you ever find that? - In Florence (D. Steel).
Sentencoids with dependent explicit predication are communicatively two-member, e.g.:
Why can't I go? - Because you're too young (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Sentencoids with a fusion of explicit and implicit predication can be communicatively two-member and one-member. If they comprise both the nominal and the verbal components of predication, we refer them to communicatively two-member sentencoids, e.g.:
Your brother Ernest deatf? - Quite dead (O. Wilde).
If they comprise only one component, we qualify them as communicatively one-member sentencoids, e.g.:
Who likes eggs? - George (R. Murphy).
321
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 787; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!