The Paradigmatic Structure of the Simple Sentence.

Until recently syntax has been studied from the point of view of its syntagmatic relations and the syntagmatic structure. Sentence was viewed as a linear unit.

Contemporary linguistics is showing a trend of revealing a paradigmatic structure of syntax. Paradigmatic relations are the relations of opposition of certain forms, oppositional forms, these forms correspond to certain meanings, these meanings correspond to a certain category.

When constructing a sentence we use the particular patterns.

S + Pred – declarative sentence

S + Pred + Obj – declarative sentence

AuxV + S + Not V – interrogative sentence

Pred + S – interrogative general

(S) + Pred – impersonal

Obj – exclamatory

These patterns can be regarded as paradigm. The relations between these sentence patterns can be characterized as the derivational ones. One pattern can be regarded as a transformation of another. A question is regarded as a transformation of an affirmative sentence.

To start the process of derivation we should find a basic element of syntagmatic derivation – it’s called elementary sentence, kernel sentence.

Derivation is a process of paradigmatic production of complex patterns of the simple ones:

# I saw him come.

This sentence consists of two kernel sentences so the sentence is a transformational combination of two kernel patterns.

Subj obj subj

[N1 - V1f - N2 ] + [N2 + V2f] 

Pro pro pro

[N1 + V1f + N2 + V2inf]

A process of forming a sentence can be understood as a set of transformation steps:

1) morphological arrangement – changes expressing syntagmatic relevant categories such as tense, voice, mood;

2) functional expansion – various uses of functional words

# He thinks so/ He does think so.

3) substitution

# My friends often go there  They often go there.

4) positional arrangement – changing word order

# She’s got a dog  Has she got a dog?

5) intonational arrangement – we apply various tones and accents.

Derivational procedures applied to kernel sentences involve it into two types of derivational relations: constructional and predicative.

Constructional derivations expresses nominative notional semantics of the sentence. Within the system of constructional derivation kernel sentence turns into clauses and phrases. The process of transformation of a kernel sentence into a clause is called clausalisation.

# The tree has grown tall. We get more shade  kernel sentences.

In a process of clausalisation we can get a great number of new sentences.

#If the tree grows tall, we can get more shade. When the tree grows tall, we can get more shade… etc.

These sentences express different meanings.

The process of clausalization involves the use of conjunctive words: and, but, though, etc.

A kernel sentence can be transformed into a phrase or same predicative construction. This process is called nominalization.

Nominalization shows the nominal aspect of the sentence.

# The train arrived  the arrival of the train.

This case is a case of complete nominalization. Some phrases cannot be formed from the sentences.

# The boy translated the text  the boy translating the text – gerundial construction – it’s partial nominalization.

Nominalization results in forming simple or semi-composite sentences.

# On his arrival we started the discussion. We went home the job finished  semi-composite with participial construction.

Predicative functions:

Being a part of predicative system sentences are changed to express their predicative functions, relations of the nominative value to reality.

Predicative functions are divided into two types: - lower – expression of morphological categories such as tense, voice, etc; - higher – expression of evaluation.

There is a list of predicative functions, which are presented as an opposition:

1. statement – question;

2. statement – inducement

3. affirmation – negation;

4. reality – unreality;

5. fact – probability;

6. fact – type of reaction;

7. emotional neutrality – emphasis etc.

Each opposition has marked an unmarked elements.

The sentence is loaded if it has a great number of marked members.

Composite Sentences.

Qs:

1. Structural Types of sentences

2. Transitional constructions

3. A composite sentence as a poly-predicative construction.

Q1. Structural Types of sentences

The difference: simple sentence – mono-predicative; composite one – poly-predicative.

Russian linguists: transitional constructions:

1. sentences with homogeneous parts;

2. sentences with a dependent clause;

3. sentences with secondary predication.

1. Sentences with homogenous parts (attribute, object, and adverbial modifier are simple ones). Sentences with homogeneous predicates which can belong to different types which sometimes have different object and adverbial modifier are semi-composite.

2. Sentences with a dependent appendix. Sentences contain the phrase than + noun (pronoun) or as + noun/ pronoun.

# She was prettier than you.  regarded as a transitional construction because it tends to develop into a clause.

Here also belong simple sentences with parts of the sentence which are used as a subordinate conjunction.

# He stood there looking at the picture as if trying to understand the expression of her face.

3. Sentences with secondary predication. Constructions with non-finite form of the verb are called semi-predication.

# I hate you to go there.  secondary predication but it’s impossible to separate it from the sentence (otherwise, the meaning of the sentence will be changed).

But sometimes separation of the sentence elements of the construction may not bring about the change of meaning.

# I saw him run – I saw him.

Syntactic function of such groups may look differently:

1. “him run” as a syntactic unit;

2. “him” and “run” are separate parts of the sentence.

As the phrase it taken as a syntactic unit then it’s an object, it stands in an object relations to the predicate “saw”.

Otherwise, “him” – object, “run” – predicative.

Choosing the second alternative adds to the list of secondary parts of the sentence objective predicative which can be expressed by infinitive, participle, attribute etc. If we compare the structures with objective predicative expressed by attribute, adverbs, the situation is different:

# I found him there – There I found him - adverbial modifier of place;  I found that her was there  objective predicative.

In linguistics: two terms for word groups (Jasperson).

Nexus – to name predicative word groups.

Junction – non-predicative word groups.

# I found him there.

There I found him – Nexus and Junction.

I found that he was there – two Nexuses.

Q2.

Poly-predicative construction – more than one.

Parts of the composite sentence are traditionally viewed as sentences. But they are not real sentences because they don’t possess communicative value of their own.

They function as integral parts of a bigger syntactic construction.

Nominative value.

Simple sentences are used to name a situation. Composite sentences are used to express a more complicated act of thought denoting two or more situational events viewed as connected.

This connection may be of different types: positive-consecutive, adversative, etc.

Composite sentences are more difficult to produce compared to simple ones. They are regarded as characteristic of literal written speech. Reasons to do this:

• composite sentence structure can express reasoning, description, sequence of events, etc.

• composite sentences are complicated so you may need to add, charge or correct something while producing them which is possible in writing

• the reader can go back to a composite sentence, reread it to get final understanding of the construction (possible only in writing);

Main types of connection in composite sentence:

• hypo taxis (“under” + “position”), subordination;

• parataxis (“equal” + “position”), coordination;

Coordination – equal rank of the sentences

Principal + subordinate clauses = subordination.

Apart from these two main types of connection – cumulation. It’s observed in composite sentences with loose connection between their clauses.

Cumulation may be: continuative, parenthetical.

Continuative cumulation is characteristic of clauses which present information as an afterthought. Something comes to speaker’s mind after the end of the utterance.

# He was developing a sense of humor and found that he had a track of saying bitter things which caught people on the raw; he told them because they amused him, hardly realizing how much they hurt, and was much offended when he found that his victims regarded him with active dislike.

Part after a semicolon is a clause connected by the continuative cumulation. It’s shown by the final position of the clause and it’s separated by a semicolon.

Parenthetical cumulation – clauses may be found in interposition or even preposition. They give a background to the essential information presented in the sentence.

# You never liked her, she says, and you have made him feel that she isn’t worthy of him.

As I say, I was watching them together.

Means of joining two types: syndetic and asyndetic.

A joining word in a syndetic sentence may be conjunction, pronoun or adverb.

Conjunction – no function.

Pronoun and adverb – syntactic function, they serve as connective elements.

Traditionally all composite sentences are divided into two types: compound sentences (coordination), complex sentences (subordination).

Syndetic and asyndetic types of clause connection are displayed in both types.

Composite sentences (a different approach):

1 level – syndetic - 2 level – complex and compound

1 level – asyndetic

This other new approach to classify composite sentences was criticized from the point of view of paradigmatic structure of the sentence.

The analysis of asyndetic composite sentences reveals their quality with synthetic counterparts in the semantical statements.

Composite sentences – division according to communicative types needs a special treatment because clauses within one sentence may belong to different communicative types.

Absence of one communicative type in some sentences led to the idea that they could not be called sentences at all.