18. The Double Predicate. The difference between the double predicate and the compound nominal one.

Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of the two base sentences overlapping round the common subject. E.g.: The man stood. + The man was silent. → The man stood silent. The moon rose. + The moon was red. → The moon rose red.

From the syntagmatic point of view, the predicate of these sentences forms the structure of the "double predicate" because it expresses two essential functions at once: first, the function of a verbal type (the verb component of the predicate); second, the function of a nominal type (the whole combination of the verb with the nominal component). The paradigmatic analysis shows that the verb of the double predicate, being on the surface a notional link-verb, is in fact a quasi-link.

In the position of the predicative of the construction different categorial classes of words are used with their respective specific meanings and implications; nouns, adjectives, participles both present and past. Cf.: They waited breathless. She stood bending over the child's bed. We stared at the picture bewildered.

Observing the semantic content of the given constructions, we see that, within the bounds of their functional differences, they express two simultaneous events — or, rather, the simultaneity of the event described by the complicator expansion with that described by the dominant part. At the same time the construction gives informative prominence not to its dominant, but to the complicator, and corresponds to the pleni-complex sentence featuring the complicator event in the principal clause placed in post-position. Cf.: The moon rose red. → As the moon rose it was red. She stood bending over the child's bed. → As she stood she was bending over the child's bed.

In the subject-sharing semi-composites with reflexivised dominant verbs of intense action the idea of change is rendered. E.g.: He spoke himself hoarse. → As he spoke he became hoarse. (Further diagnosis: He spoke and spoke until he became hoarse.)

Apart from the described types of subject-sharing sentences there is a variety of them featuring the dominant verb in the passive. E.g.: The idea has never been considered a wise one. The company was ordered to halt.

These sentences have active counterparts as their paradigmatic derivation bases which we analyze below as semi-complex sentences of object sharing.

And finally there are cases where the verb is a mere link-verb, entirely devoid of its primary meaning; in such cases, we have a compound nominal predicate: At this idea he went mad = he became mad.

19. Declarative, interrogative and imperative sentences. According to Types of Communication

(1) Declarative

(2) Interrogative

(3) Imperative

Sentences belonging to the several types differ from each other in some grammatical points, too. Thus, interrogative sentences are characterized by a special word order. In interrogative sentences very few modal words are used, as the meanings of some modal words are incompatible with the meaning of an interrogative sentence. It is clear that modal words expressing full certainty, such as certainly, surely, naturally, etc., cannot appear in a sentence expressing a question. On the other hand, the modal word indeed, with its peculiar shades of meaning, is quite possible in interrogative sentences, for instance, ‘Isn't so indeed?’

There are also sentences which might be termed semi-interrogative. Oh, you've seen him? is half-way between the affirmative declarative sentence, You have seen him, and the interrogative sentence, Have you seen him? From, the syntactical viewpoint, the sentence is declarative, as the mutual position of subject and predicate is, you have seen, not have you seen, which would be the interrogative order. In what way or ways does it, then, differ from a usual declarative sentence? That is where the question of the intonation comes in. Whether the question mark at the end of the sentence does or does not mean that the intonation is not that typical of a declarative sentence, is hard to tell, though it would rather seem that it does.

Imperative sentences also show marked peculiarities in the use of modal words. It is quite evident, for example, that modal words expressing possibility, such as perhaps, maybe, possibly, are incompatible with the notion of order or request. Indeed, modal words are hardly used at all in imperative sentences.

The notion of exclamatory sentences and their relation to the three established types of declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences presents some difficulty. It would seem that the best way to deal with it is this. On the one hand, every sentence, whether narrative, interrogative, or imperative, may be exclamatory at the same time, that is, it may convey the speaker's feelings and be characterized by emphatic intonation and by an exclamation mark in writing. This may be seen in the following examples: But he can't do anything to you! (R. WEST) What can he possibly do to you! (Idem) Scarlett, spare me!

On the other hand, a sentence may be purely exclamatory, that is, it may not belong to any of the three types classed above. This would be the case in the following examples: "Well, fiddle-dee-dee!" said ScarlettOh, for God's sake, Henry!

However, it would perhaps be better to use different terms for sentences which are purely exclamatory, and thus constitute a spe­cial type, and those which add an emotional element to their basic quality, which is either declarative, or interrogative, or imperative. If this view is endorsed, we should have our classification of sentences according to type of communication thus modified:

1. Declarative (including emotional ones)

2. Interrogative (including emotional ones)

3. Imperative (including emotional ones)

4. Exclamatory

This view would avoid the awkward contradiction of exclamatory sentences constituting a special type and belonging to the first three types at the same time.