angl

The specific feature of the Ukrainian language is a wide usage of agreed attributes, expressed by possessive adjectives, for example:

^•^mk•\ dh`mo iZklmrdh\Z khi•edZ.

The attribute in the English language is expressed mostly by the same parts of speech as in Ukrainian. The characteristic feature of the English language in this respect is the possibility to use the noun in the common case in the function of an attribute: a stone house (dZf¶ygbc [m^bghd). The function of such a noun in the sentence is established only by its position before the modified noun, compare: export oil (_dkihjlgZ gZnlZ) and oil export (_dkihjl gZnlb). The function of an attribute can be fulfilled by two or more nouns, for example: a steam engine cylinder (pbe•g^j iZjh\h]h ^\b]mgZ).

The attribute expressed by a noun in the form of a possessive case is put in English unlike in Ukrainian before a modified noun (compare: my father’s room – d•fgZlZ fh]h [ZlvdZ).

In both languages there is spread such a type of attribute as an apposition (ijbdeZ^dZ . There are no special differences in the expression of an apposition, if not taking into account the following two types spread in the English language:

a)A special type of an apposition, pointing towards the name of an object. It is expressed with the help of a prepositional word combination with the preposition of, for example: the continent of Europe, the city of London, the name of Lincoln and so on. In Ukrainian in such cases the apposition is attached to the modified noun: f•klh Ev\•\ k_eh 1\Zg•\dZ •f¶y E•gdhevg.

b)Similar to it is the word combination with the preposition of, where the main noun renders the characteristic of some notion, expressed by the subordinated noun. Such attributive word combinations correspond in Ukrainian to negative comparisons of the type g_ « Z « . Compare: a brute of a man – g_ ex^bgZ Z a\•j; a jewel of a picture – g_ dZjlbgZ Z i_je [5; 135-136].

5. The adverbial modifier

According to their meaning adverbial modifiers are subdivided into many types, which are basically similar in English and in Ukrainian. These are adverbial modifiers of: place (f•kpy , time

251

qZkm , manner kihkh[m ^•€ , measure and degree klmi_gy c f•jb , reason ijbqbgb , purpose f_lb , result gZke•^dm , conditionmfh\b , concession ^himklm . Besides in English there is one more type of adverbial modifier – the adverbial modifier of attending circumstances h[klZ\bgZ kmijh\•^gbo mfh\ .

In Ukrainian adverbial modifiers are not attached to any particular position in a sentence, whereas in English adverbial modifiers have their certain position in a sentence. For example, the adverbial modifier of place is most often placed at the end of the sentence, but if there is a necessity to point out towards the connection with the previous sentence it is placed at the beginning of the sentence: Here we began making fire. He made notes in a little book. The adverbial modifier of time is not so tightly connected with the predicate as the adverbial modifier of place that is why it can be easier put at the beginning of the sentence. Nevertheless it also usually stands at the end of the sentence: He came home in the morning. Adverbial words, denoting time as a very general characteristic, for example: never (g•dheb), ever (dheb-g_[m^v), always (aZ\`^b), often

(qZklh) etc., are put before the simple predicate, and in the analytical form of the verb – inside this form: I never laugh at anybody. We have never laughed at him.

Widely used are adverbial modifiers expressed by English gerundial constructions, for example: He passed without speaking to anybody. On his entering the room, the light went out. Their equivalents in Ukrainian are subordinate sentences.

Unlike English in Ukrainian there are widely used adverbial modifiers, expressed by different case forms of a noun without a preposition. The main of them are the following:

1) The instrumental case for the adverbial modifier of place, for example: >b\exky lZd [mp•f kh\Z e_lblv em]Zfb, [_j_]Zfb lZ g_ljyfb lZ ]eb[hdbfb yjZfb lZ rbjhdbfb kl_iZfb lZ

[ZcjZdZfb L R_\q_gdh

2)The accusative case for the adverbial modifier of place, for example: 2^mlv \hgb ihe_ €^mlv • ^jm]_. >mgZc-fhj_ iebklb ljb

j•q_gvdb [j_klb.

3)The genitive case for the adverbial modifier of time, for

example: h^gh]h \_qhjZ gZklmigh]h ^gy i•agvh€ ghq•.

252

4)The instrumental case for the adverbial modifier of time, for example: \_kghx e•lhf \_qhjZfb ghqZfb jZgdZfb.

5)The accusative case for the adverbial modifier of time, for example: Qb [m^_ lZ qhjgh[jb\dZ k_c j•d fheh^bpy" L R_\- q_gdh 1lbfmlv \kx g•q « H =hgqZj

6)The instrumental case for the adverbial modifier of manner, for example: 1^m y lbohx oh^hx L R_\q_gdh « KlZeb ihi•^ g_x \_ebq_agbf ]hf•gdbf lZ[hjhf H =hgqZj

7)The instrumental case for the adverbial modifier of comparison, for example: <•g kb^blv a]hjgm\rbkv [m[ebdhf gZ^ ZiZjZlhf H =hgqZj

All the mentioned Ukrainian adverbial modifiers have as their equivalents in English prepositional constructions (except the adverbial modifier of time with attributes this, next, last as well as the adverbial modifier of measure of the type We walked miles. It weighs a pound.).

The main peculiarity of the English language as compared with Ukrainian is the availability of complex adverbial modifiers, expressed with the help of predicative constructions. Here belong:

a) The adverbial modifier of attending circumstances, expressed by the participial construction with the preposition with: We saw a thick forest, with the red sun hanging low over it.

b) The detached adverbial modifier of reason, time or attending circumstances, expressed with the help of the so called “absolute participial construction”: The lesson being over, I decided to speak to the professor [5; 136–138].

6. Complex parts of the sentence

In both contrasted languages parts of the sentence are of similar types. But one of the peculiarities of the English syntax is the existence of the so called “complex” parts of the sentence. Each part of the modern English sentence can be simple or complex. The simple part of the sentence can be expressed not only by a separate word but also by a group of words that make up the lexical and grammatical unity. Unlike this the complex part of the sentence (e.g., the Complex Subject, the Complex Object) are always the combination of two parts

253

of the sentence, one of which points towards the person or the object, and the second – towards the action preformed by this person or object. Thus two members of the sentence that enter this complex are in predicate relations. Compare: I hate him to go away. Our arrival having been noted, we had a lot of guests.

The predicate relation between the elements of such a complex part of the sentence is not formed in a grammatical way; from the morphological point of view they do not create the word combination but enter into word combination with the part of the sentence on which they together depend.

Most frequently complex parts of the English sentence are expressed by predicative word combinations with non-finite parts of speech, performing the syntactic function of the secondary predicate. According to its meaning such a complex part of the sentence can be compared with a subordinate sentence or a simple sentence. In Ukrainian there are no similar complex parts of the sentence and similar relations are rendered with the help of subordinate sentences.

Thus, the mentioned complex parts of the English sentence are usually expressed with the help of predicative word groups, known in traditional grammars as:

1)Complex Object (with the Infinitive, Participle I, Participle II, Gerund, non-Verbal), e.g.:

She wants him to study better.

2)Complex Subject (with the Infinitive, Participle I, Participle II, non-Verbal), e.g.:

The delegation was reported to have already arrived.

3)For-to-Infinitive Construction, e.g.:

For you to do this is of the utmost importance.

4)Absolute Constructions/Prepositional Constructions (with Participle I, Participle II, Infinitive, non-Verbal), e.g.:

She was staring at him, her hands trembling with fear.

5)Gerundial Predicative Construction, e.g.:

He was aware of her being constantly late for her job.

According to their structure all the mentioned constructions are quite different and can hardly be put into one group, taking into account their traditional names. Thus, for example, Complex Object

254

and Complex Subject are predicative word groups called according to the syntactic function they perform in a sentence, whereas Absolute Participial Construction, For-to-Infinitive Construction and Gerundial Predicative Construction have got their names rather according to the constituents they are made of. Besides, For-to-Infinitive Construction can perform different syntactic functions in the sentence and therefore called Complex Subject, Complex Object, Complex Adverbial Modifier, etc. The same is true concerning the Gerundial Predicative Construction. As to Absolute Constructions, since their main syntactic function is to modify, they may be called Complex Adverbial Modifiers. Nevertheless, what unites all these constructions is that they constitute word combinations made of the constituent parts resembling the subject and the predicate. Since these constructions are never used independently, entering the sentence which already has its predication center, the subject-like and the predicate-like constituents of these constructions obtain the status of secondary ones, and therefore are called the “secondary subject” and the “secondary predicate”. As a result, the mentioned predicative word-groups can be called – structures of secondary predication (kljmdlmjb \lhjbggh€ ij_^bdZp•€ – K<I).

Their unification into one group of “structures of secondary predication” (further SSP) is made on the basis of the following characteristics:

–SSP function only within the sentence at availability of the primary predication and in the formal sense are subjugated to the structures of the primary predication (SPP);

–sentences, containing SSP are semantically and formally complicated and poly-predicative phenomena;

–SSP are semantically equivalent to the subordinate sentence;

–in their surface structure there is the violation of coordination of subject-predicate relations and their deep structure contains subjectpredicate relations equivalent to those of the simple sentence;

–SSP are structures that consist of the secondary subject and the secondary predicate; the secondary predicate can be expressed both by the verbal (that is Infinitive, Participle I and II, Gerund) and by the non-verbal part of speech.

255

Since each structure of secondary predication (SSP) functions only within the limits of the sentence, that is at the availability of the structure of primary predication (SPP), – the most general model of the sentence containing SSP will be the following:

S1 + P1 + S2 + P2 (+ complements), where

S1 – is the primary subject of the sentence; P1 – is the primary predicate of the sentence.

The SSP in its turn consists of S2 + P2 (+ complements), where S2 – is the secondary subject that can be expressed by a pronoun (most often by the pronoun in the objective case), by a noun (a

common noun or less often by a proper name), by the noun group;

P2 – the secondary predicate which is most often expressed by verbals: Infinitive (with the marker “to” or without it), Participle I, Gerund, Participle II and the non-Verbal (e.g., noun, adjective);

complement(s) – very often after the secondary predicate there can be a compliment or the object of this verb, which is “demanded” by the semantics of the given verb and helps to reveal its meaning.

Since Secondary Predication Structures are dependent ones and enter the sentence performing different syntactic functions, they can be classified according to the type of the syntactic structure they enter in the sentence. Before presenting this type of classification the types of syntactic structures should be mentioned.

Considering the syntactic structure of the simple sentence, the Ukrainian linguist A.K. Korsakov (:.D. DhjkZdh\) distinguished 4 types of syntactic structures: the structure of predication (kljmdlmjZ ij_^bdZp•€), the structure of complementation kljmdlmjZ dhfie_- f_glZp•€ , the structure of modification kljmdlmjZ fh^bn•dZp•€ and the structure of coordination kljmdlmjZ dhhj^bgZp•€ . In foreign linguistics the notion of the syntactic structure and its four types was introduced by W. Francies in 1958 within the frames of the structural approach towards language study. The views of W. Francies were in their turn based on the ideas of Otto Jespersen and L. Bloomfield.

A.K. Korsakov additionally distinguished two types of the structure of predication – the primary predication (consisting of the subject and the predicate) and the secondary predication (consisting of the secondary subject and the secondary predicate). Within the

256

structure of complementation (consisting of the head-word and its complement) he distinguished the following types of complements:

1)The subjective complement or the predicative that characterizes the content of the substance-subject, e.g.: He is a student.

2)The objective complement, or the object-substance, which is in certain relations with the substance-subject expressed by the verbpredicate, e.g.: He studies languages.

3)The adverbial complement pointing towards certain characteristics of the verb-predicate, e.g.: He lives in Lviv.

4)The verbal complement which is the second verb component of the predicate, e.g.: He must study well.

Types of coplements are distinguished by A.K. Korsakov taking into consideration their semantic character.

The structure of modification (consisting of the head-word and its modifier) has two types of modifiers: the attributive modifier (He is a quick runner.) and the adverbial modifier (He runs quickly.). Of importance is also distinguishing adverbial complements (which cannot be omitted from the sentence without breaking its sense) and adverbial modifiers (that bring in additional information, explaining some other parts of the sentence, and thus, can be omitted from the sentence) that makes both structural and semantic sentence analysis more distinct.

Finally, the structure of coordination (consisting of two components of equal value) is usually represented by two homogeneous members of the sentence that can perform different syntactic functions, e.g.: Peter and Ann rushed downstairs immediately. or He could sing and dance equally well.

Structures of secondary predication (SSP) (kljmdlmjb \lhjbggh€ ij_^bdZp•€), the peculiar phenomenon of the English language (absent in Ukrainian), consisting of the secondary subject and the secondary predicate (e.g.: They (S1) wanted (P1) him (S2) to perform (P2) this task) can themselves enter structures of predication, complementation and coordination. The type of syntactic structure they enter depends on the syntactic function the structure of secondary

257

predication performs in the sentence. Taking this into account, SSP can be classified in the following way:

I. SSP being the component of only one syntactic structure

K<I sh \bklmiZxlv dhfihg_glhf ebr_ h^gh]h lbim kbglZdkbqgh€ kljmdlmjb

I.1. SSP entering the structure of complementation performing the function of the object

(K<I sh \oh^ylv ^h kljmdlmjb dhfie_f_glZp•€,

\bdhgmxqb nmgdp•x ^h^ZldZ

I.1.1. SSP with the infinitive, e.g.:

I made them let me out of the hospital (Rendell Ruth).

I.1.2. SSP with Participle I, e.g.:

She left him standing there (Grisham John).

1.1.3. SSP with Participle II, e.g.:

She felt her gaze drawn to meet the pair of eyes that looked down at her from lean strong face …(Loring Jenny).

I.1.4. SSP with the non-verbal part of speech, e.g.:

Well, don’t get too happy, I prefer you thin (Archer Jeffrey).

I.2. SSP entering the structure of predication performing the function of the subject

K<I sh \oh^ylv ^h kljmdlmjb ij_^bdZp•€ \bdhgmxqb nmgdp•x i•^f_lZ

1.2.1. SSP with the infinitive, e.g.:

And what proof was there that she hadn’t reached the cliffs until ten o’clock, half an hour after Hilary Robarts was thought to have died? (P.D. James).

1.2.2. SSP with Participle I, e.g.:

Rumour said that on certain nights of the year ghostly lights might be seen passing from window to window of the upper storey, for the house was supposed to be haunted … (Thompson Flora).

1.2.3. SSP with Participle II, e.g.:

At the far end of the corridor, almost in front of the large window, at that moment filled with grey light and rain, my father’s figure could be seen frozen in a posture that suggested he was taking part in some ceremonial ritual (Kazuo Ishiguro).

1.2.4. SSP with the non-verbal part of speech, e.g.:

258

In conservative circles in the state, Luke was considered a murderer and a crackpot (Conroy Pat).

I.3. SSP entering the structure of modification in the function of the adverbial modifier (K<I sh \oh^ylv ^h kljmdlmjb fh^bn•dZp•€ \bdhgmxqb nmgdp•x h[klZ\bgb )

I.3.1. SSP with the infinitive, e.g.:

… when Penelope emerged from the kitchen, after clearing the meal away and washing up the dishes she found him waiting for her, already dressed for outdoor activity, with a worn corduroy jacket to protect his old bones from the nippy breeze, and a scarlet muffler wound round his neck (Pilcher Rosamunde).

1.3.2. SSP with Participle I, e.g.:

Then, eyes on Jacaue’s serious profile – he was eating a millefeuilli with his fingers, forks being the only thing he had forgotten

– she realized that no such thought would occur to him (Huth Angela).

1.3.3. SSP with Participle II, e.g.:

Ricards wasn’t there but the message given, he rang off

(P.D. James).

1.3.4. SSP with the non-verbal part of speech, e.g.:

The article complete, I spent more time analysing and transcribing Joao and Aldas field notes (Boyd William).

II. SSP being the component of different syntactic structures (K<I sh \bklmiZxlv dhfihg_glZfb j•agbo lbi•\

kbglZdkbqgbo kljmdlmj )

11 SSP with the infinitive introduced by the preposition “for” (K<I a •gn•g•lb\hf sh \\h^blvky \ j_q_ggy ijbcf_ggbdhf

“for”, e.g.:)

I was out, but Mrs Cooper took it down and left it for me to find

(Pilcher Rosamunde).

11.2. SSP with gerund, e.g.:

He shouted about my being English (Kazuo Ishiguro) [9]. Structures of secondary predication are the allomorphic feature

of the English language. They are rendered into Ukrainian with the help of subordinate clauses as parts of complex sentences, where their poly-predicative nature is revealed, e.g: He heard her playing the piano. – <•g qm\ yd \hgZ ]jZ} gZ i•Zg•gh.

259

Discussion questions and exercise tasks:

I. Consider your answers to the following:

1.Describe the nature of a simple sentence. What parts of the sentence are usually enough to make a simple sentence?

2.State the difference between the principal parts of the sentence and the secondary parts of the sentence.

3.Define the subject of the sentence. Are there any differences in the subject expression in English and Ukrainian languages?

4.What are subjectless sentences?

5.Define the predicate of the sentence. Are there any differences in the predicate expression in English and Ukrainian languages?

6.Describe the types of predicates in both contrasted languages.

7.Define the object of the sentence. What is the difference between the direct and indirect objects, between the prepositional and non-prepositional objects?

8.Define the attribute of the sentence. What types of attributes in both contrasted languages can be mentioned?

9.Define the adverbial modifier as the part of the sentence. Do the types of adverbial modifiers coincide in English and Ukrainian languages?

10.What are complex parts of the sentence? Describe their types and constituent parts.

11.State the difference between the syntactic structures of predication, complementation, modification and coordination. Provide examples in both contrasted languages.

12.What are the structures of secondary predication? State the difference between the primary predication structures and secondary predication structures.

13.Dwell upon the problems of secondary predication structures classification.

II. Define subjects and predicates (types of predicates) in the given sentences. Characterize the means of their expression. Render these Ukrainian sentences into English, comparing the ways of subject and predicate expression in both contrasted languages.

Klh ^jma•\ – p_ fZeh h^bg \hjh] – p_ [Z]ZlhF Kl_evfZo

260