- •Chapter I
- •§ 1. Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical
- •§ 6. In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.
- •§ 4. We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology.
- •§ 9. Functional words re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal some important traits that remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
- •§ 10. Pronouns considered in the light of the syntactic principles receive a special systemic status that characteristically stamps the general presentation of the structure of the lexicon as a whole.
- •§ 11. As a result of the undertaken analysis we have obtained a foundation for dividing the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of classification into three unequal parts.
- •§ 2. The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties.
- •§ 2. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender classifiers
- •§ 2. The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of interpretation.
- •§ 2. Four special views advanced at various times by different scholars should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
- •§ 2. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, I.E. The definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two, but three meaningful
- •§ 6. The essential grammatical features of the articles exposed in the above considerations and tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the final, generalising stage of analysis.
- •§ 5. The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses distinguished by different semantic and lexico-grammatical features.
- •§ 8. On the basis of the subject-process relation, all the notional verbs can be divided into actional and statal.
- •Non-finite verbs (verbids)
- •§ 2. Approached from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of the verbal person and number leads the grammarian to the statement of the following converging and diverging features of their forms.
- •§ 1. The aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the realisation of the process irrespective of its timing.
- •§ 2. At this point of our considerations, we should like once again to call the reader's attention to the difference between the categorial terminology and the definitions of categories.
- •Chapter XVI verb: voice
- •§ 1. The verbal category of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactic construction.
- •Chapter XVIII adjective
- •§ 2. All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative.
- •§ 7. Let us examine now the combinations of less/least with the basic form of the adjective.
- •§ 8. Having considered the characteristics of the category of comparison, we can see more clearly the relation to this category of some usually non-comparable evaluative adjectives.
- •§ 3. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.
- •§ 4. Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.
- •§ 5. Among the various types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix -ly occupy the most representative place and pose a special problem.
- •§ 1. Performing their semantic functions, words in an utterance form various syntagmatic connections with one another.
- •§ 2. Groupings of notional words fall into two mutually opposite types by their grammatical and semantic properties.
- •§ 6. The completive, one-way connection of words (monolateral domination) is considered as subordinative on the
- •1G—1499 241
- •Actual division of the sentence
- •§ 2. An attempt to revise the traditional communicative classification of sentences was made by the American scholar Ch. Fries who classed them, as a deliberate challenge to the
- •§ 4. The communicative properties of sentences can further be exposed in the light of the theory of actual division of the sentence.
- •17—1499 257
- •§ 5. As far as the strictly interrogative sentence is concerned, its actual division is uniquely different from the actual division of both the declarative and the imperative sentence-types.
- •§ 8. In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same time contains a distinct pronominal question:
- •§ 9. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
- •§ 10. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
- •Simple sentence: constituent structure
- •Chapter XXV simple sentence: paradigmatic structure
- •§ 5. As part of the constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as other, expanded base-sentences undergo derivational changes into clauses and phrases.
- •Chapter XXVI
- •19-1499 289
- •§ 6. Clauses of primary nominal positions — subject, predicative, object — are interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents. Cf.:
- •§ 10. Complex sentences which have two or more subordinate clauses discriminate two basic types of subordination arrangement: parallel and consecutive.
- •Chapter XXVIII compound sentence
- •§ 4. It is easily seen that coordinative connections are correlated semantically with subordinative connections so that a compound sentence can often be transformed into
- •Chapter XXIX semi-complex sentence
- •§ 3. Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of the two base sentences overlapping round the common subject. E.G.:
- •§ 6. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert
- •Chapter XXX semi-compound sentence
- •Chapter XXXI sentence in the text
- •§ 1. We have repeatedly shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically and syntactically.
- •§ 3. Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or "retrospectively".
- •§ 4. On the basis of the functional nature of connectors, cumulation is divided into two fundamental types: conjunctive cumulation and correlative cumulation.
- •§ 6. Cumuleme in writing is regularly expressed by a paragraph, but the two units are not wholly identical.
- •§ 7. The introduction of the notion of cumuleme in linguistics helps specify and explain the two peculiar and rather important border-line phenomena between the sentence and the sentential sequence.
- •24- 371
- •Марк Яковлевич Блох
§ 9. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
The expression of inducement within the framework of a declarative sentence is regularly achieved by means of constructions with modal verbs. E.g.:
265
You ought to get rid of it, you know (C. P. Snow). "You can't come in," he said. "You mustn't get what I have" (E. Hemingway). Well, you must come to me now for anything you want, or I shall be quite cut up (J. Galsworthy). "You might as well sit down," said Javotte (J. Erskine).
Compare semantically more complex constructions in which the meaning of inducement is expressed as a result of interaction of different grammatical elements of an utterance with its notional lexical elements:
"And if you'll excuse me, Lady Eileen, I think it's time you were going back to bed." The firmness of his tone admitted of no parley (A. Christie). If you have anything to say to me, Dr Trench, I will listen to you patiently. You will then allow me to say what I have to say on my part (B. Shaw).
Inducive constructions, according to the described general tendency, can be used to express a declarative meaning complicated by corresponding connotations. Such utterances are distinguished by especially high expressiveness and intensity. E.g.: The Forsyte in him said: "Think, feel, and you're done for!" (J. Galsworthy)
Due to its expressiveness this kind of declarative inducement, similar to rhetorical questions, is used in maxims and proverbs. E.g.:
Talk of the devil and he will appear. Roll my log and I will roll yours. Live and learn. Live and let live.
Compare also corresponding negative statements of the formal imperative order: Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Don't cross the bridge till you get to it.
§ 10. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
Imperative sentences performing the essential function of interrogative sentences are such as induce the listener not to action, but to speech. They may contain indirect questions. E.g.:
"Tell me about your upbringing." — "I should like to hear about yours" (E. J. Howard). "Please tell me what I can do. There must be something I can do." — "You can take the leg off and that might stop it..." (E. Hemingway).
266
The reverse intermediary construction, i.e. inducement effected in the form of question, is employed in order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request, invitation, suggestion, softening of a command, etc. E.g.:
"Why don't you get Aunt Em to sit instead, Uncle? She's younger than I am any day, aren't you, Auntie?" (J. Galsworthy) "Would — would you like to come?" — "I would," said Jimmy heartily. "Thanks ever so much, Lady Coote" (A. Christie).
Additional connotations in inducive utterances having the form of questions may be expressed by various modal constructions. E.g.:
Can I take you home in a cab? (W. Saroyan) "Could you tell me," said Dinny, "of any place close by where I could get something to eat?" (J. Galsworthy) I am really quite all right. Perhaps you will help me up the stairs? (A. Christie)
In common use is the expression of inducement effected in the form of a disjunctive question. The post-positional interrogative tag imparts to the whole inducive utterance a more pronounced or less pronounced shade of a polite request or even makes it into a pleading appeal. Cf.:
Find out tactfully what he wants, will you? (J. Tey) And you will come too, Basil, won't you? (O. Wilde)
§ 11. The undertaken survey of lingual facts shows that the combination of opposite cardinal communicative features displayed by communicatively intermediary sentence patterns is structurally systemic and functionally justified. It is justified because it meets quite definite expressive requirements. And it is symmetrical in so far as each cardinal communicative sentence type is characterised by the same tendency of functional transposition in relation to the two other communicative types opposing it. It means that within each of the three cardinal communicative oppositions two different intermediary communicative sentence models are established, so that at a further level of specification, the communicative classification of sentences should be expanded by six subtypes of sentences of mixed communicative features. These are, first, mixed sentence patterns of declaration (interrogative-declarative, imperative-declarative); second, mixed sentence patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative, imperative-interrogative); third,
267
mixed sentence-patterns of inducement (declarative-imperative, interrogative-imperative). All the cited intermediary communicative types of sentences belong to living, productive syntactic means of language and should find the due reflection both in theoretical linguistic description and in practical language teaching.
CHAPTER XXIV