- •Марк Яковлевич Блох
- •М.Я.Блох
- •Москва «Высшая школа»
- •Foreword
- •Chapter II morphemic structure of the word
- •Chapter iiicategorial structure of the word
- •§ 1. Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical (morphological) meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of the word.
- •§ 6. In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.
- •Chapter ivgrammatical classes of words
- •§ 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.
- •§ 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.
- •Chapter V noun: general
- •§ 2. The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties.
- •Chapter VI noun: gender
- •C h a p t e r V I I noun: number
- •§ 2. The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of interpretation.
- •C h a p t e r VIII noun: case
- •§ 2. Four special views advanced at various times by different scholars should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
- •C h a p t e r IX noun: article determination
- •§ 6. The essential grammatical features of the articles exposed in the above considerations and tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the final, generalizing stage of analysis.
- •C h a p t e r X
- •Verb: general
- •§ 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.
- •C h a p t e r XI non-finite verbs (verbids)
- •Chapter XII finite verb: introduction
- •Chapter XIII
- •Verb: person and number
- •§ 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.
- •C h a p t e r XIV
- •Verb: tense
- •C h a p t e r XV
- •Verb: aspect
- •§ 1. The aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the realization 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.
- •C h a p t e r 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.
- •C h a p t e r XVII
- •Verb: mood
- •Forms of the subjunctive mood
- •C h a p t e r 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.
- •С н а р т е в XIX adverb
- •§ 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.
- •C h a p t e r XX syntagmatic connections of words
- •§ 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.
- •C h a p t e r XXI sentenced general
- •C h a p t e r XXII actual division of the sentence
- •C h a p t e r XXIII communicative types of sentences
- •§ 5. The communicative properties of sentences can further be exposed in the light of the theory of actual division of the sentence.
- •§ 6. 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.
- •§ 9. In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same time contains a distinet pronominal question:
- •§ 10. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
- •§ 11. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
- •C h a p t e r 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.
- •C h a p t e r XXVI composite sentence as a pOlYpredicative construction
- •С h a p t e r XXVII complex sentence
- •§ 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.
- •C h a p t e r XXVIII compound sentence
- •C h a p t e r 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.:
- •C h a p t e r XXX semi-compound sentence
- •C h a p t e r 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.
- •A list of selected bibliography
- •Contents
C h a p t e r XXV simple sentence: paradigmatic structure
§ 1. Traditional grammar studied the sentence from the point of view of its syntagmatic structure: the sentence was approached as a string of certain parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic functions. As for paradigmatic relations, which, as we know, are inseparable from syntagmatic relations, they were explicitly revealed only as part of morphological descriptions, because, up to recent times, the idea of the sentence model with its functional variations was not developed. Moreover, some representatives of early modern linguistics, among them F. de Saussure, specially noted that it was quite natural for morphology to develop paradigmatic (associative) observations, while syntax "by its very essence" should concern itself with the linear connections of words.
Thus, the sentence was traditionally taken at its face value as a ready unit of speech, and systemic connections between sentences were formulated in terms of classifications. Sentences were studied and classified according to the purpose of communication, according to the types of the subject and predicate, according to whether they are simple or composite, expanded or unexpanded, compound or complex, etc.
In contemporary modern linguistics paradigmatic structuring of lingual connections and dependencies has penetrated into the would-be "purely syntagmatic" sphere of the sentence. The paradigmatic approach to this element of rendering communicative information, as we have mentioned before, marked a new stage in the development of the science of language; indeed, it is nothing else than paradigmatic approach that has provided a comprehensive theoretical ground for treating the sentence not only as a ready unit of speech, but also and above all as a meaningful lingual unit existing in a pattern form.
§ 2. Paradigmatics finds its essential expression in a system of oppositions making the corresponding meaningful (functional) categories. Syntactic oppositions are realized by correlated sentence patterns, the observable relations between which can be described as "transformations", i.e. as transitions from one pattern of certain notional parts to another pattern of the same notional parts. These transitions, being oppositional, at the same time disclose derivational connections of sentence patterns. In other words, some of the patterns are to be approached as base patterns, while others, as their transforms.
For instance, a question can be described as transformationally produced from a statement; a negation, likewise, can be presented as transformationally produced front an affirmation. E.g.:
You are fond of the kid. →Are you fond of the kid?
You are fond of the kid. →You are not fond of the kid.
Why are the directions of transitions given in this way and not vice versa? - Simply because the ordinary affirmative statement presents a positive expression of a fact in its purest form, maximally free of the speaker's connotative appraisals.
Similarly, a composite sentence, for still more evident reasons, is to be presented as derived from two or more simple sentences. E.g.:
He turned to the waiter. + The waiter stood in the door. → He turned to the waiter who stood in the door.
These transitional relations are implicitly inherent in the syntagmatic classificational study of sentences. But modern theory, exposing them explicitly, has made a cardinal step forward in so far as it has interpreted them as regular derivation stages comparable to categorial form-making processes in morphology and word-building.
And it is on these lines that the initial, basic clement of syntactic derivation has been found, i.e. a syntactic unit serving as a "sentence-root" and providing an objective ground for identifying syntactic categorial oppositions. This element is known by different names, such as the "basic syntactic pattern", the "structural sentence scheme", the "elementary sentence model", the "base sentence", though as the handiest in linguistic use should be considered the "kernel sentence" due to its terminological flexibility combined with a natural individualizing force.
Structurally the kernel sentence coincides with the elementary sentence described in the previous chapter. The difference is, that the pattern of the kernel sentence is interpreted as forming the base of a paradigmatic derivation in the corresponding sentence pattern series.
Thus, syntactic derivation should not be understood as an immediate change of one sentence into another one; a pronounced or written sentence is a finished utterance that thereby cannot undergo any changes. Syntactic derivation is to be understood as paradigmatic production of more complex pattern constructions out of kernel pattern constructions as their structural bases. The description of this production ("generation") may be more detailed and less detailed, i.e. it can be effected in more generalized and less generalized terms, depending on the aim of the scholar. The most concrete presentation concerns a given speech utterance analysed into its derivation history on the level of the word-forms.
By way of example let us take the following English sentence: I saw him come.
This sentence is described in scholar grammar as a sentence with a complex object, which is syntagmatically adequate, though incomplete from the systemic point of view. The syntagmatic description is supplemented and re-interpreted within the framework of the paradigmatic description presenting the sentence in question as produced from the two kernel sentences: I saw him. + He came. → I saw him come.
In a more generalized, categorial-oriented paradigmatic presentation the sentence will be shown as a transformational combination of the two kernel pattern-formulas:
The same may be given in terms of the IC-derivation tree diagrams (see Fig. 8). The indices specifying the basic symbols can vary in accord with the concrete needs of analysis and demonstration.
§ 3. The derivation of genuine sentences lying on the "surface" of speech out of kernel sentences lying in the "deep base" of speech can be analysed as a process falling into sets of elementary transformational steps or procedures. These procedures make up six major classes.
The first class includes steps of "morphological arrangement" of the sentence, i.e. morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant categories, above all, the predicative categories of the finite verb: tense, aspect, voice, mood. The syntactic role of these forms of morphological change (systematized into morphological paradigms) consists in the fact that they make up parts of the more general syntactico-paradigmatic series. E.g.:
John + start (the kernel base string) →John starts. John will be starting. John would be starting. John has started. Etc.
The second class of the described procedures includes various uses of functional words (functional expansion). From the syntactic point of view these words are transformers of syntactic constructions in the same sense as the categorial morphemes (e.g. inflexions) are transformers of lexemes, i.e. morphological constructions. E.g.:
He understood my request. →He seemed to understand my request. Now they consider the suggestion. →Now they do consider the suggestion.
The third class of syntactic derivational procedures includes the processes of substitution. Among the substitutes we find personal pronouns, demonstrative-substitute pronouns, indefinite-substitute pronouns, as well as substitutive combinations of half-notional words. Cf.:
The pupils ran out of the classroom. →They ran out of the classroom. 1 want another pen, please. →I want another one, please.
The fourth class of the procedures in question is formed by processes of deletion, i.e. elimination of some elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions. As a result of deletion the corresponding reduced constructions are produced. E.g:.
Would you like a cup of tea? →A cup of tea? It's a pleasure! →Pleasure!
The liith class of syntactic derivational procedures includes processes of positional arrangement, in particular, permutations (changes of the word-order into the reverse patterns). E.g.:
The man is here. →Is the man here? Jim ran in with an excited cry. →In ran Jim with an excited cry.
The sixth class of syntactic derivational procedures is formed by processes of intonattonal arrangement, i.e. application of various functional tones and accents. This arrangement is represented in written and typed speech by punctuation marks, the use of different varieties of print, the use of various modes of underlining and other graphical means. E.g.:
We must go. →We must go? We? Must go?? You care nothing about what I feel. →You care nothing about what / feel!
The described procedures are all functionally relevant, i.e. they serve as syntactically meaningful dynamic features of the sentence. For various expressive purposes they may be applied either singly or, more often than not, in combination with one another. E.g.:
We finish the work→We are not going to finish it.
For the production of the cited sentence-transform the following procedures are used: morphological change, introduction of functional words, substitution, intonational arrangement. The functional (meaningful) outcome of the whole process is the expression of the modal future combined with a negation in a dialogue response. Cf.:
Are we ever going to finish the work? → Anyway, we are not going to finish it today!
§ 4. The derivational procedures applied to the kernel sentence introduce it into two types of derivational relations in the sentential paradigmatic system: first, the "constructional" relations; second, the "predicative" relations. The constructional derivation effects the formation of more complex clausal structures out of simpler ones; in other words, it provides for the expression of the nominative-notional syntactic semantics of the sentence. The predicative derivation realizes the formation of predicatively different units not affecting the constructional volume of the base; in other words, it is responsible for the expression of the predicative syntactic semantics of the sentence. Both types of derivational procedures form the two subsystems within the general system of syntactic paradigmatics.