Chapter 5 SYNTAX

Syntax is a central component of human language

The Oxford Companion

5.1. Syntax as a part of grammar

1. Subject-matter of Syntax. Not only is it important to learn the words of a language, but it is also crucial that we know how to combine words into acceptable sequences to convey propositional meaning. Syntax is the study of how words саn be put together to produce the well-formed sentences of a given language. Thus, the field of syntax covers agreement, order of words, and other devices.

The term 'syntax' is from the Ancient Greek syntaxis, verbal noun which means “arrangement” or “setting out together”. As a part of grammar it studies external functions of the word, which are syntactic relations and connections between words within linearly ordered syntactic units: the word-group/phrase, the clause, the sentence, the super-phrasal unity and the text.

Syntax is usually defined as the structure of sentences and “sentence” is universally recognized as the central point of syntax. [Crystal, 1988:221; Baker, 1989:3]. Not only is it important to learn the words of an unfamiliar language, but it is also crucial that we know how to combine words into acceptable sequences to convey propositional meaning. Syntax is the study of how words саn be put together to produce the well-formed sentences of a given language. English imposes fairly strict constraints on word order. Typically the subject is followed by a verb and then its object. For this reason, English is called an S-V-O (Subject-Verb-Object) language. However even in English this word-order is not entirely rigid. For instance, the sentence Mary showed John the picture has an indirect object (IO). John intervenes before the object to produce the order of S-V-IO-O. A sentence such as The man who lives next to my sister collects antique cars also disrupts the typical S-V-O order in English. It interposes the center-embedded relative clause who lives next to my sister between the subject and the verb and object, which produces discontinuity in the S-V-O pattern. Furthermore, sentences such as John clumsily opened the саn and John opened the саn clumsily саn have similar meaning even if their word orders differ from one another. Implicit expectation that words follow a conventional order in English aids a listener immensely in arriving at a rapid and accurate interpretation of many sentences. Typical word order patterns are used as a comprehension strategy in English. But if word order deviates from the norm, problems in interpretation or differences in emphasis саn arise. For instance, the active sentence The tornado transported Dorothy has a focus different from its almost synonymous passive, Dorothy was transported by the tornado.

The study of syntax comes back to the ancient times, where the first classification of sentences according to the communicative goal (Aristotel) and division of sentence into two parts – noun and verb (Plato) have been done. The term “syntax” has been firstly introduced by stoics (III B.C.). European syntactic tradition is based on the stoics teaching which is still used in logical analysis of semantic meaning of a sentence. Stoics also single out communicative types of sentences, types of relations within simple and complex sentences. The development of syntax up to the middle of the XX century can be regarded as step by step replacing logic and psychological approach by formal and grammatical and vice versa. Logical approach considered syntax as a teaching of ways of expressing ideas. It was developed by philosophical grammars based on rationalism and universalism. Sentence has been considered as idea, conclusion; sentence members - means of expressing of logical components. Psychological approach appeared in the end of the 19^th century (G. Paul. G. Shteintal, V. Wundt, O. Потебня). It was very close to the logical approach, though semantic meaning of sentence has been interpreted both communicatively and psychologically. Formal and grammatical approach firstly focuses on the means of combinations of linguistic units, which reflected in structuralists’ researches of distributional syntax, in particular, in the concept of descriptive linguistics about syntactic valence. Logical approach has been further developed in the concepts of logical language analysis (G. Frage, L. Witgenshtein, B. Russel) and transformed in into the theory of speech acts and linguistic pragmatics At the end of the XX century the focus of grammarians has been replaced to the logic, semantic, communicative, discourse, conversational, computer and cognitive aspects.

As a linguistic discipline syntax is not homogeneous. Syntax studies the way in which language units and their meanings combine to form sentences and texts, peculiarities of syntactic units and their behaviour in various linguistic contexts. It also deals with the ways in which words, with or without appropriate inflections, are arranged to show connections of meaning within the sentence. For example, in It is a good idea there are connections of meaning among It, is, a, good and idea which are shown by the order of words (It + is + a + good + idea) and also, in part, by inflectional agreement between the verb and pronoun (It is, not *it are).

The individual connections can also form part of a whole, distinguished by another pattern of arrangement: for example, in the exclamation How nice it tastes! or, as part of a larger sentence, in However nice it tastes, you are not to eat any more. For the syntactic characterization of syntactic units grammarians also use the equivalent Latin terms construction and syntagma. Within construction units stand in constructional relations to each other. For example, in I like ideas which sound good, I like ideas stands in constructional relations to which sound good; in which sound good, good and which stand in constructional relations to sound etc. So, syntactic units can be looked at from two angles: as a whole or as part of larger unit.

2. Syntactic theories. Syntactic units may also be analyzed from various aspects. Each aspect concerns a certain characteristic feature of these units. Correspondingly, there are a number of various syntactic theories, focusing on particular aspects of analysis of syntactic units. Modern syntactic researches are characterized by wide range of various trends: traditional or structural, categorical, paradigmatic, transformational, constructional, semantic, functional communicative, pragmatic, stylistic, textual, cognitive etc.

Categorical syntax or Syntagmatic morphology studies combinability of word classes or parts of speech. It is the theory of word groups or phrases or word combinations. The following models of combinability (N+N; A+N; N+V; P+V; Adv.+Adj) are typical of modern English. By contrast, combinability *A+N is impossible in modern English. For instance: world peace, good idea, bird sings, very good etc.

Paradigmatic syntax studies paradigmatic properties of syntactic units: word groups and sentences. for translation

The paradigm of phrase: an article to translate

to be translated

The paradigm of sentence: I read a book

a paper

a letter

an article

Stylistic syntax studies the way syntactic constructions function in various registers: news, fiction, academic, conversation. It focuses on the stylistic synonymy, stylistic functions of sentence members, word order, variation of syntactic connections between different sentence parts, syntactic stylistic figures etc. In the middle of the XX century the term expressive syntax appeared. This notion (not yet quite clear-cut identified) is used to describe certain syntactic phenomena of written variety of language. In modern syntactic researches expressive element of an utterance is considered as a feature of language (not speech) which influence the type of sentence structure. For instance, according to some scholars (G. Zolotova, G. Akimova) only certain structural sentence models, which are used only in certain registers (e.g. poetry, fiction, conversation) can be considered as communicatively expressive syntactic structures. However, the essence of expressive syntax is still not clear-cut, since the term expressive can be interpreted differently: expressing speaker’s attitude toward the utterance, where expressivity comes close to modality; expressing emotions; a feature of style; functional, stylistic, and metaphorical coloring. Some scholars think that expressivity is closely connected with pragmatic effect of utterance to the addressee, which determine the way of expressing ideas. All in all, there two approaches toward interpreting expressivity in syntax: (1) expressivity is closely connected with modality; (2) expressivity is connected with special syntactic constructions, which are used as stylistic device mainly in writing variety. Generally speaking, expressive syntax considers expressive functions performed by inversion, parceling, segmenting, parenthetical constructions, composite sentences, elliptic and antielliptic constructions, reduction etc.

Paradigmatic stylistic syntax deals with the structure of the sentence, the number and position of its constituents, compared with other choices or stylistically relevant variants. It studies the syntactical paradigm, i.e. a set of parallel, more or less equivalent, interchangeable, though formally different syntactical structures and their comparative stylistic significance. A syntactic unit (sentence or utterance) is not a unit of constant length possessing neither upper nor lower limitations. It can be shortened or extended; it can be complete or incomplete, simple, compound, or complex. Its constituents, length, word order, as well as communicative type (assertion, negation, interrogation, exhortation) are variable. In syntax, what is most popular and most current is the common two-member sentence with subject and predicate, direct word order, the communicative purpose of the sentence is expected to be consistent with its structure etc. Any deviation from these requirements are stylistically relevant. They can be classified with taking into account the following: quantitative characteristics of the syntactic structure: a) the absence of elements which are obligatory in a neutral construction; b) excess of non-essential elements; the stylistic value of various types of inversion; general syntactic meanings, communicative aims of sentences, stylistic effects of shifts in syntactic meaning, changes in the use of the established syntactic forms.

Syntagmatic stylistic syntax, by contrast, deals mainly with a chain of sentences, the sequence of sentences constituting a text. Here we search for stylistic functions in the sequence of sentence forms. Sentences in sequence often show no regular alternation of form. We may say that such syntax is stylistically neutral. However, some regular alternations are conspicuous and stylistically relevant.

Transformational-generative syntax (worked out by N. Chomsky, Z.Harris, etc.) studies the sentence from the point of view of its deep (semantic) structure. It was proved that the variety of sentences in any language could be reduced to a definite number of kernel sentences (kernels), which are elementary sentential constructions that serve the basis for generation of all possible types of the sentence received as a result of different syntactic processes. The number of kernels varies from language to language. On the other hand, as the result of different approaches, the number of kernels may vary in one and the same language too. In particular, the number of kernels in English is considered to be 3 (M.Y.Blokh), 7 (Z.Harris) or 39 (G.G.Pocheptsov).

The following four sentence types are kernels in Modern English:

• NV type.: She smiles. She is (not )smiling.

• N is N-type: They are (not) students. It is getting dark.

• N is A-type: He is (not) clever. We are happy.

• NVN-type: He reads a book. They have (not) done it.

The transformational-generative theory provides differentiation of sentence meaning achieved through application of the kernel identification procedure. This is of special importance in eases of sentence ambiguity, as illustrated below by the example of one sentence with two different meanings: Flying planes can be dangerous: 1. Planes can be dangerous. Planes fly. 2. Planes can be dangerous. Someone flies planes. Generative syntax operates by deep and surface syntactic structures, sets universal rules for syntactic transformations and their constrains, reveals innate principles and parameters which are amended in the process of speech communication.

Constructional syntax (worked out by G.G.Pocheptsov) studies constructional significance of a part of the sentence in regard to the whole syntactic unit. This theory is based on the notion of obligatory and optional environment of linguistic units. In the sentence below, the object forest is obligatory and the adverbial in a distance is optional environment of the verb saw: I saw a forest - I saw a forest in a distance - *In a distance

Semantic or functional-semantic syntax studies functional semantics, which is the meaning of a part of the sentence (the subject, the object, etc.) in terms of semantic roles that relate linguistic units to extralingual reality. The examples below show that the subject as a part of the sentence (underlined) may be represented by different semantic roles. I opened the door. (Agent). The key opened the door (Instrument). The door opened. (Experience) Researches in the field of semantic syntax have been influenced by the concept of actant structure of a sentence (L.Tesnier) double component model of proposition which includes dictum (constant component) and modus (changeable subjective component), generative syntactic theories, and case grammar (Ch. Fillmore). Modern researches in semantic syntax contain deep analysis of special types of semipredicative constructions which can be transformed into one implicit syntactic predicative unit. The attention of modern researchers (Н. Шведова, З. Попова, Г. Золотова, М. Корміліцина, Т. Туліна, Э. Ширяєв, П. Адамец, Д. Ворт, Н. Арутюнова, В. Богданов. Н. Гуйванюк, I. Вихованець etc) is focused on the lists of transformations of structural schemes, changes of simple sentence paradigm, synonymy, variativity or co-variativity of surface structures of propositions. Alongside with the structural scheme of simple sentence syntax researchers introduce positional scheme [Арутюнова 1987; Попова 1997, 255-259], which presents propositional information of an utterance.

Communicative syntax studies utterances from the perspective of speech communication. It is aimed at dynamic aspect of linguistic units - utterances, their peculiarities of actual divisions in certain communicative situations, setting up communicative sentence paradigm, peculiarities of modality and performativity, the role of word order and intonation in formation the semantic meaning of utterances etc. The basic notions of this theory are the theme and the rheme distinct by their informative significance in relation to the whole sentence, “the theme of the sentence” (in the continual text, it is called “the topic of the text") is the sentence part that conveys the information already known, whereas the rheme of the sentence (in the text, it is called 'the comment of the text') is the sentence part that conveys some new information. In the examples below, the rheme is underlined: Who is here ? - Jim is here. Where is Jim? - Jim is here. The central notion of communicative syntax is functional perspective of the sentence. The notion of functional perspective of the sentence in interpretation of Wilem Mathesius is drastically different from the traditional formal differentiation into sentence parts. According to the scholar’s view, the functional perspective gives the possibility to get into semantic structure of the sentence. Thus, the functional perspective is responsible for the main function of language - communicative. In the functional perspective, W. Mathesius distinguishes the theme (also referred to as topic), i.e. the part of the sentence that is being talked about (predicated). Once stated, the theme is therefore "old news", i.e. the thing already mentioned and understood. Contrary to the formal (grammatical) division of the sentence into sentence parts (subject, predicate, attribute, object, adverbial modifier), functional sentence perspective is based on semantic structure of the sentence, it provides researchers with the tools to consider sentences from the point of view of their message in a given situation, i.e. functional correlation of their components. Functional perspective is the foundation that is used to distinguish already known elements of the sentence (theme), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, elements that deliver new information and mark the core of sentence content (rheme), i.e. they indicate the information for the sake of which the sentence is produced. The theme and the rheme are accompanied by various transitional elements that connect the theme to the dynamic core of the sentence, its rheme.

The idea of the "given" and the "new" as basis of sentence structure Karl Boost's that determines its communicative functioning is also articulated in his syntactic theory. The scholar believes that the hearer's first reaction to the first word in a sentence is tension (Spannung) which then is transformed into communicative resolution, i.e. elimination of the tension with the help of its adequate termination. It is Boost who first uses the term "rheme" in reference to the part of the sentence that informs the hearer of something new about the theme. In fact, the term "rheme" was used by ancient Greeks to denote what we now call "predicate". Introduction of the term is conditioned by the necessity to refer to the sentence part, larger than the predicate, i.e. the part that contains everything predicated to the theme. It is obvious that Mathesius and Boost agree on the following ideas: the theme is a part of the sentence delivering least information and expressing the already known starting point in order to introduce something new. The scholars' positions, nevertheless, are essentially different in that Boost identifies functional perspective with linear sequence. The dependence between the order of the elements in the sentence and their informative value may be interpreted only in terms of the information theory. The oppositions "given - new", "theme - rheme" are just several of oppositions that make up the sentence.

Syntax of text studies the rules of adaptation and cohesion of sentences in the context and situation of communication, referential nature of utterances in certain textual blocks, the role of syntactic units in formation of the concept of the text its topics, metaphorical and expressive counter etc.

Cognitive syntax is aimed at analysis of the way syntactic constructions are projected on the structure of knowledge of a human being. This syntactic theory has been preceded by long tradition of computer modeling of syntactic structures, based on researches of semantic and generative syntax. However, transformations of structural schemes or positional schemes (mainly based on utterances of propositional semantics of truth) do not take into account metaphorical means of representation of eventual world of an utterance, though these means are no less important and widespread, especially in fiction. For instance: “How about playing the game with the cards face up,”Bolan suggested. (Pendelton, 87) “Only briefly did I pay heed to the warning bell that rang sharply in my mind. You are fooling with Aitken’s wife, I told myself…You could regret it the rest of your life.” (Chase,98) “If Aitken found out about us the New York job would go up in smoke” (Chase,82). As metaphor has no formal limitations, it can be a word, a phrase, a part of a sentence, or a sentence as a whole. Moreover, there are not only “simple” metaphors (those in which only one statement is metaphorical as a whole, or contains a metaphorical element), but “sustained” (chain of metaphors) metaphors as well, when one metaphorical statement, creating an image, is followed by another, containing a continuation, or logical development of the previous metaphor: “In November a cold, unseen stranger, whom the doctors called Pneumonia, stalked about the colony, touching one here and there with his icy fingers. Over on the east side this ravager strode boldly, smiting his victims by scores.. Mr Pneumonia was not what you would call a chivalric old gentleman…” (Henry, 67).

Metaphorization of a part of an utterance makes determination of positional scheme more complicated due to double or multiple overlapping of several conceptual spheres, situations through which metaphorical or paradoxical events are presented by standard grammatical structure of a sentence. Very often grammatical parsing of sentence into subject and predicate makes difficulties for syntactic as well as semantic and logical analysis of a sentence. As a result, a great block of syntactic means of metaphorical and imaginative speech is still beyond the scope of standard syntax. One of the reasons is the gap between taxonomy of structural and positional schemes, system of transformations, suggested by generative and semantic syntax, on the one hand, and semantic variety of utterances in real communication, on the other. For instance, U. Stepanov compares syntax with a great continuum, where there is well structured part - a network which consists of units (structural models of a sentence) and linear relations (transformations), which connect units; at the same time, it has long sets of syntactic units (characterized by lexical variability) which fill in the lacunes between the lines of the network” [Степанов 1989, 7]. Recognition of the nature of language as synergetic, human, creative and evristic brought the necessity of analyzing real speech products not only logically but also metaphorically. Some linguists indicated that syntactic theories lag behind speech practice. The result is lack of notions, definitions and terms for new propositional senses and means of their expressing [Popova, 1996: 267]. J. Lakoff underlines that “no formal (structural) syntax, neither formal (structural) semantics in its modern perception can adequately analyze metaphorical, ecological and expirential nature of human thinking.” [Lakoff, 1988: 50] Consequently, working out a new model of syntax, representing a network of relations of various psychological functions of a human mind should be an important outcome of modern syntax aimed at the analysis of nonstandard utterances with metaphorical element.

Pragmatic syntax, a relatively new trend in syntactic theory, studies sentences from the perspective of their communicative-functional or speech act characteristics. It is based on the Speech Act Theory worked out by British logician J. Austin and further developed by American scholars J. Searle, Van Dijk, Strawson, etc. It studies both the speaker's/writer's intention to influence the interlocutor/reader and the very situation of communication. Pragmatic syntax focuses on the study of different pragmatic meanings of one and the same utterance pronounced by the speaker or written by the writer under different communicative conditions (in different communicative contexts). The examples below show that depending on the communicative intention of the speaker/writer and communivative situation, structurally identical sentences may be functionally different: It is hot here may express either statement or inducement, hence it may be either a constative or a directive; What are you doing? may be a question or a strong warning; Miss Ann is here may express a statement, a greeting, a warning, a kind favour etc. These sentences difer in their pragmatic functions.