Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OUTLINE
3. Methods of investigation
Contrastive Typology
Typology as a branch of linguistics comes from “type” or “typical”.
Aims at establishing similar general linguistic categories serving as a basis for the
classification of languages of different types, irrespective of their genealogical relationship.
Represents a linguistic subject of typology based on the method of comparison / contrasting.
Contrastive Typology also aims at establishing the most general structural types of
languages on the basis of their dominant or common phonological, morphological, lexical and
syntactic features.
The number of different languages which may be simultaneously subjected to typological
contrasting at a time is not limited and always predetermined by the aim.
To perform on the basis of the obtained practical data a truly scientific classification of the
existing l-ges of the world;
To establish on this basis the universal features/phenomena, which pertain to each single l-ge
or groups of l-ges
Object of Typology
may be separate features and language units or phenomena pertained to both living and one
or more dead languages.
1. Universal Typology investigates all languages and aims at singling out in them such
features/phenomena which are common in all languages.
6. Structural Typology has for its object the means of grammatical expression, order of
constituent parts at the level of words, word-combinations and sentences.
Comparative method is the main one, which is also employed in historical and comparative
linguistics.
The deductive method is based on logical computation / calculation which suggests all
admissive variants of realization of a certain feature/ phenomenon in speech of one or of
some contrasted languages.
The inductive method needs no verification since the investigated feature/ phenomenon was
proved already by the preceding generations of researcher linguists.
The statistic method is employed in contrastive typology for establishing the necessary
quantitative and qualitative representation of some features or languages data, for identifying
the percentage of co-occurrence of some features / phenomena or language units in speech
of the contrasted languages.
Among the best known is the indexes method by the American linguist Joseph Greenberg.
The method helps identify the quantitative co-occurrence or frequency of some feature or
phenomenon in the contrasted languages.
E.g.: M – к-ть морфем, W – к-ть слів, P – к-ть префіксів, S – к-ть суфіксів.
Реве та стогне Дніпр широкий.
В лесу родилась ёлочка, в лесу она росла.
Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away.
The immediate constituents (ICs ) method is employed to contrast only language units with
the aim of establishing their constituent parts in one or some contrasted languages.
E.g.: garden (6 letters, 4 sounds, 2 syllables: CO + CC)
writings (writ – a root, -ing – a suffix, -s – an inflection)
He learns many new words every week : He learns (predicative) + many new words (attributive) + every
week (adverbial).
The transformational method is identifies the nature of some language unit in a contrasted
language.
The transformational method is employed to identify the nature of a language unit in the
source language or in the target language. Thus, the type of the Ukrainian sentence Знаю,
прийду, may be understood and treated differently:
1. as a definite personal sentence with two homogeneous predicates;
2. as a definite personal main sentence (why shall I come? - because (I know it))
3. as two co-ordinate definite personal clauses with the causal implicit meaning.
1. Claude Lancelot and Antoine Arnaud in their Universal or Rational Grammar ( Pour Royal, 1660)
2. Frederick Schlegel (1772-1829)
3. August Schlegel (1767-1845)
4. Wilhelm Humboldt (1767-1835)
5. Franz Bopp (1971-1867)
6. American linguist E. Sapir (1884-1939)
7. Prague school linguists V. Skalička, V. Mathesius,
8. I. Levy, N.S. Trubeckoy
9. N.Ya. Marr (1864-1934), I.I. Meshchaninov (1883-1967)
10. M.Ya. Kalynovych, Yu.O. Zhluktenko
Typology of the Phonetic and Phonological Systems
OUTLINE
1. Contrasting phonemes
2. Contrasting syllables
Branches of linguistic science treating the units and phenomena of the phonetic and
phonological levels:
1. speech sounds/phonemes;
2. syllables;
1. According to the type of obstruction and the manner of the noise production.
3. According to the work of the vocal cords and the force of articulation.
Phonomorphology
The historical correlation of consonants and vowels is treated by phonomorphology. The
correlations may express various categorial meanings such as tense, person, aspect, number
and also case of nouns (only in Ukrainian). Thus, in English:
come – came, begin – began/begun, foot – feet, goose –geese, louse – lice, mouse – mice,
man – men, etc.
Phonomorphology
In Ukrainian such vowel correlations can express not only the category of tense and
number, but also the category of person and aspect: носити – ніс/несла, лізти –
лазив/лазили; the number of nouns: ніч – ночі, рік – роки; case forms (not only of nouns):
кінь – коня – конем.
The Syllable in the Contrasted Languages
The syllable as a unit of speech is considered to be a unit of both phonetic and
phonological nature.
As a unit of pronunciation, the syllable may be formed by a vowel or a vowel + one or
more consonants, which can equally precede the vowel.
The Syllable in the Contrasted Languages
The syllable cannot be formed by a single consonant.
Structural types of syllables in the contrasted languages:
1. open uncovered /V/ syllables;
2. open covered syllables;
3. closed syllables.
Approaches to the Syllabification of Words
1) the articulatory principle;
2) the acoustic principle;
3) the combinatorial (functional) principle.
Syllable Generation and Syllable Division in Different Contrasted Languages
The main function of intonation is to constitute the intonation groups/ syntagms and whole
utterances.
The universal feature of intonation is to delimit the sense groups, i.e. syntagms in speech.
2. distinctive and
3. attitudinal.
These three main functions of intonation are equally pertained to English, Ukrainian and other
languages. Intonation is often called “melody” or simply “tone” or “prosody”.
_________________________________________________________
TYPOLOGY OF THE LEXICAL SYSTEMS
Principal Constants
1. Words, their semantic classes and word-forming means as well as their structural models
and stylistic peculiarities of use.
2. The LSGs (lexico-semantic groups of words) which are pertained to the contrasted
languages.
3. Stable and idiomatic expressions which are also of universal nature, though they always
have some national peculiarities in every single language.
Common notions of actions: Live, eat, drink, think, sleep, wake, walk, speak, think, ask, answer.
Objects and phenomena surrounding every human being: The sun, the moon, the stars.
Social phenomena: Mother, father, child, sister, brother.
A large typologically common class of words – universal lexicon.
Typologically distinct subgroups of international elements:
1. genuine internationalisms having a coming linguistic form, source of origin and
identical lexical meaning(cf.: parliament, poet, theatre, history etc.).
2. lexical loan internationalisms having the same lexical meaning but existing only in
national lingual forms (e.g. specific gravity/weight питома вага, agreement /
узгодження (грам.).
The linguistic principles of typological classification of lexicon:
1. on their common lexico-grammatical nature;
2. on their belonging to a common lexico-semantic group;
3. on their peculiar stylistic function and meaning;
4. on their denotative or connotative (or both) meanings.
Prefixal morphemes have their main features common in the contrasted languages. They may
equally be form-building as well as word-forming. English prefixes, however, can form words
of more parts of speech than the Ukrainian ones. For example, they can form statives:
a+sleep>asleep.
National prefixes pertain to one of the contrasted languages and non-existent in the other
(mis-state – робити фальшиву заяву).
Common in all languages are also the paradigmatic classes of idioms which may
be substantival (троянський кінь); verbal (брати бика за роги); adverbial (тут і там).
Typologically relevant is also the identification of the group of regular
international idioms, which are common, however, only in some groups of geographically
closer languages.
TYPOLOGY OF THE MORPHOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
THE MORPHEME
the principal typological constant of the morphological level
endowed in both contrasted languages with some minimal meaning
b) compound:
(Eng) -ment, -hood, -ward : management, brotherhood, seaward (Ua) -ство, -ський, -цький :
суспільство, сільський, ткацький
The Free morpheme
Free / root morphemes are lexically and functionally not dependent on other morphemes.
They may:
BE regular words:
e.g.: boy, day, he, four, день, кінь, річ, він, три
- CONSTITUTE the lexical core of a word:
e.g.: boyhood, daily, денна, нічний, тричі
Bound morphemes
- bound to the root or to the stem consisting of the root morpheme and of one or more affixal
morphemes:
Root Morphemes
Free-root-morphemed words are still represented in all lexico-morphological classes of both
contrasted languages as: - nouns, - verbs, - adjectives, etc.
Affixal Morphemes
Derivational Morphemes
– sometimes may change even the lexico-grammatical nature of the derivative word.
INFLEXIONAL MORPHEMES
represents a mechanical adding of one or more affixal morphemes to the root morpheme in:
helps express, both in English and Ukrainian, sex distinctions: e.g.: boy-girl, bull-cow, man-woman.
From the morphological side, the noun is characterized by the existence of a system of suffixes and
prefixes performing.
Ukrainian nouns may have 6 or 7 marked singular and plural oppositions in the Nominative,
Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Instrumental, Locative, and Vocative case.
- The Adjective as a part of speech is characterized in English and Ukrainian by its common
implicit lexico-grammatical nature and common functions in the sentence.
– It expresses the quality of things or substances (a nice flower, urgent measures).
NUMERAL
The Numeral in the contrasted languages has a common implicit lexico-grammatical meaning
expressing quantity (two, ten, twenty-one).
It may denote:
1. a part of an object (one-third, two-fifths, одна третя, дві п’ятих) or
2. order of some objects (the first, the tenth – перший, десятий).
All numerals fall into some common and divergent subclasses. Common are
1. cardinal;
2. ordinal and
3. fractionals (common and decimal fractions).
2) The collective numerals denoting a quantity of object in their totality or indivisible unity, e.g.:
двоє, троє, семеро.
PRONOUN
Verbs
include the general implicit meaning (the lexico-grammatical nature) of the verb which serves to
convey verbiality, i.e. different kinds of:
1. activity (go, read, skate),
2. various processes (boil, grow, obtain),
3. the inner state of a person (feel, bother, worry),
4. possession (have, possess), etc.
Statives in English and Ukrainian are invariable notional words whose logico-grammatical
function is to denote:
3. state in motion.
English statives have a characteristic prefix a- formerly added to the roots of nouns, adjectives or
verbs
e.g.: afire, aflame, aknee).
Ukrainian statives, on the contrary, are formed with the help of some suffixes, which are the
following: -o:
e.g.: Романові стало прикро.
Typological Characteristics of Functional Words Eng vs. Ukr
Functionals
English
The Preposition
The Conjunction
The Particle
The Article
Ukrainian
The Preposition
The Conjunction
The Particle
Modal words and modal phrases
The Interjection
Modals Origin
different parts of speech or phrases acquiring some modal meaning in the sentence:
a) adverbs:
really, probably, fortunately; справді, очевидно, дій сно;
b) nouns with or without prepositions (mainly in Ukr.):
in one’s view, in one’s opinion, to one’s judgement; сором, страх, на мою думку, на мій
погляд;
c) verbal phrases and sentences:
it seems, you see; здається, бачите, як бачите, кажуть;
d) statives (in Ukr.): чутно, видно
Predicative
Attribute
Adverbial modifier
Typology of Conjunctions
Functional words realizing the connection of homogeneous parts in coordinate word-groups
and sentences or linking subordinate clauses in composite sentences
Isomorphic structure:
a) simple: and, but, if, that; і / й , бо, ні;
b) derivative / compound: although, unless, because; або, проте, якщо;
c) composite: as if, in order that; так що, для того щоб.
Use:
a) non-repeated:(both): and, but; а, але, що;
b) repeated (Ukr.): ні – ні, чи – чи, не то – не то;
c) correlative (Eng.): neither… nor, no sooner… than; не стільки – скільки.
2) disjunctive,
3) adversative,
4) resultative,
SYNTAX - Originates from the Greek words:syn (“co-” / “together”) plus taxis (“sequence,
order, arrangement”) - Is the branch of Grammar dealing with the ways in which words are
arranged to show connections of meaning within a sentence
- Constructional Syntax
- Communicative Syntax
- Pragmatic Approach
- Textlinguistics
- Discourse Analysis
Transformational-Generative Grammar
The Transformational Grammar was first suggested by American scholar Zelling Harris
as a method of analyzing sentences and was later elaborated by another American scholar
Noam Chomsky as a synthetic method of ‘generating’ (constructing) sentences.
The main point of the Transformational-Generative Grammar is that the endless variety of
sentences in a language can be reduced to a finite number of kernels by means of
transformations.
These kernels serve the basis for generating sentences by means of syntactic processes.
Transformational-Generative Grammar
Different language analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels (from 3 to
39).
The following 6 kernels are commonly associated with the English language:
(1) NV – John sings.
(2) NVAdj – John is happy.
(3) NVN – John is a man.
(4) NVN – John hit the man.
(5) NVNN – John gave the man a book.
(6) NVPrepN – The book is on the table.
It should be noted that (3) differs from (4) because the former admits no passive
transformation.
Transformational-Generative Grammar
Transformational method proves useful for analysing sentences from the point of their deep
structure:
Flying planes can be dangerous.
This sentence is ambiguous, two senses can be distinguished:
a) the action of flying planes can be dangerous,
b) the planes that fly can be dangerous.
Therefore it can be reduced to the following kernels:
a) Planes can be dangerous b) Planes can be dangerous
X (people) fly planes Planes fly
Constructional Syntax
Constructional analysis of syntactic units was initiated by Prof. G.Pocheptsov in his book
published in Kyiv in 1971.
Deals with the constructional significance/ insignificance of a part of the sentence for
the whole syntactic unit.
Based on the obligatory or optional environment of syntactic elements.
For example, the element him in the sentence
I saw him there yesterday
is constructionally significant because it is impossible to omit it.
At the same time the elements there and yesterday are constructionally insignificant –
they can be omitted without destroying the whole structure.
Communicative Syntax
Primarily concerned with the analysis of utterances from the point of their
communicative value and informative structure.
Deals with the actual division of the utterance – the theme and rheme analysis.
Both the theme and the rheme constitute the informative structure of utterances.
The theme is something that is known already while the rheme represents some new
information.
Depending on the contextual informative value any sentence element can act as the theme
or the rheme:
Who is at home? – John is at home. Where is John? – John is at home.
Pragmatic Approach
Pragmatic approach to the study of syntactic units can briefly be described as the study of
the way language is used in particular contexts to achieve particular goals.
Speech Act Theory was first introduced by John Austin. The notion of a speech act
presupposes that an utterance can be said with different intentions or purposes and
therefore can influence the speaker and situation in different ways: I just state the fact
I want you to do something about it
(close the window);
It’s cold here I’m threatening you;
I’m seeking for an excuse for not doing something;
I want you to feel guilty of it;
etc.
Textlinguistics
studies
Discourse Analysis
focuses on the study of language use with reference to the social and psychological
factors that influence communication
- a word-group,
- a clause,
- a sentence, and
– a text.
Their main features are:
a) they are hierarchical units – the units of a lower level serve the building material for
the units of a higher level;
b) as all language units the syntactic units are of two-fold nature:
Syntactic Unit
they are of communicative and non-communicative nature:
– word-groups and clauses are of non-communicative nature
– while sentences and texts are of communicative nature
Syntactic Meaning
is the way in which separate word meanings are combined to produce meaningful word-
groups and sentences. E.g.: Green ideas sleep furiously.
This sentence is quite correct grammatically. However it makes no sense as it lacks syntactic
meaning.
Syntactic Form
N1 + V + N2
Syntactic Function
is the function of a unit on the basis of which it is included to a larger unit: in the word-
group a smart student the word ‘smart’ is in subordinate attributive relations to the head
element.
In traditional terms it is used to denote syntactic function of a unit within the sentence
(subject, predicate, etc.).
Syntactic Position
is the position of an element.
The order of constituents in syntactic units is of principal importance in analytical languages.
The syntactic position of an element may determine its relationship with the other elements
of the same unit: his broad back, a back district, to go back, to back smb.
Syntactic Relations
Coordination
(SR1) – syntagmatic relations of independence.
SR1 can be observed on the phrase, sentence and text levels.
Coordination may be symmetric and asymmetric.
Symmetric coordination is characterized by complete interchangeability of its elements –
pens and pencils.
Asymmetric coordination occurs when the position of elements is fixed: ladies and
gentlemen.
Forms of connection within SR1 may be:
- copulative (you and me),
- disjunctive (you or me),
- adversative (strict but just) and
- causative-consecutive (sentence and text level only).
Subordination
(SR2) – syntagmatic relations of dependence.
SR2 are established between the constituents of different linguistic rank.
They are observed on the phrase and sentence level.
Subordination may be of three different kinds:
– adverbial (to speak slowly),
– objective (to see a house) and
– attributive (a beautiful flower).
Forms of subordination may also be different :
– agreement (this book – these books),
– government (help us),
– adjournment (the use of modifying particles just, only, even, etc.) and
– enclosure (the use of modal words and their equivalents really, after all, etc.)
–
Predication
(SR3) – syntagmatic relations of interdependence.
Predication may be of two kinds – primary (sentence level) and secondary (phrase level).
Primary predication is observed between the subject and the predicate of the sentence
while secondary predication is observed between non-finite forms of the verb and nominal
elements within the sentence.
Secondary predication serves the basis for gerundial, infinitive and participial word-groups
(predicative complexes).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________
Typology of the Syntactic Systems
OUTLINE
3. Syntactic Connections
SYNTACTIC CONSTANTS
SYNTACTIC UNITS
Typological Contrasting
possible due to:
Allomorphic Features
ISOMORPHIC + ALLOMORPHICFEATURES
EXTENSION
achieved through adding subordinate components to an element that is the head/ nucleus, i.e.
subordinating in the syntaxeme
may be achieved both by syndetic, i.e. explicit, synthetic or analytical means, or asyndetically
(which is more often in English)
Naturally realized in smaller and larger syntactic units – word-groups and sentences.
WGs consist of two or more notional words connected by isomorphic or allomorphic
grammatical means and expressing some sense.
unextended extended
(2 notional words) (more than 2 notional words)
EXTENSION
Unextended:
E.g.: syntactically free:
this book – these books, to see somebody – to see him;
books for reading, library books, worth reading,
red from excitement, to read much/well, etc.
E.g.: stable / phraseological:
to throw light, to set free, to make steps, etc.
Extended:
E.g.: to go to work every day; not to know what to do; strike the iron while it is hot, etc.
EXTENSION
Extended may be the subject, the simple and compound predicates, objects with attributive
adjuncts, adverbial modifiers.
The extended subject:
Her dark short hair was neat and glossy.
Її чорні коротенькі коси були гладенькі й лиснючі.
Their mother is one of the village girls.
Їхньою матір'ю є одна з цих сільських дівчат.
a) APPOSITION
An external syntactic transformation may equally be achieved via parenthetic and inserted
words, word-groups or sentences that are incorporated into the structure of a syntactic unit
by addition or insertion.
E.g.:
A woman doctor – жінка-лікар
Shevchenko the poet – Шевченко-поет
He would, of course, say nothing. –
Він, звичайно / зазвичай, нічого не відповів.
E.g.:
That evening after supper – her father had a taste for Middle East food – Mary slipped out into
the garden in great agitation. –
Того вечора по вечері (а її батько добре розумівся на смакових якостях близькосхідних
страв) вона вибігла страшенно збуджена в сад.
b) DETACHMENT
A common way of external syntactic extension that is presumably of isomorphic nature in
most languages
E.g.:
They're (Negroes) just like children just as easy-going, and always singing and laughing ... (a
detached attribute) –
Таж вони просто як діти – такі ж – добродушні і завжди то співають, то сміються
собі...
And you know, he had this old coloured nurse, this regular old nigger mammy and he just
simply loves her. (a detached apposition) –
І знаєте, у нього навіть нянькою була стара негритянка, справжнісінька негритоска
мемі, і він просто любить її.
c) SPECIFICATION
a way of syntactic extension in English and Ukrainian achieved via a syntactic element/part of
the sentence usually modified by one or more other complementing elements of the same
nature and syntactic function
E.g.:
"I'm not very tall, just average.” –
Я не дуже висока, якраз середня.
"She's got heaps of drink there – whisky, cherry brandy, etc." –
“У неї там багато різних напоїв: віскі, черрі-бренді, тощо”.
EXPANSION
a syntactic process equally aimed at enlarging the content of word-groups and sentences in
either of the contrasted languages (a coordinate joining of syntactically equal in rank
components, usually achieved by way of addition – strings of components function as
homogeneous parts of the sentence)
E.g.:
The police, the fishmonger, boys going to school, dozens of people waved to him.
Hercule Poirot rose, crossed to the writing-table, wrote out a cheque – and handed it to the
other man
Long, long, afterwards I found the arrow still unbroken.
ELLIPTICAL OMISSION
Omitted may be in a two-member sentence only one or both principal parts of the sentence.
E.g.:
When did you get in? –
Yesterday morning.
Ти коли прибув сюди? –
Вчора ввечері.
What do you want from me? –
Everything.
Що ти хочеш від мене? –
Все.
E.g.:
Do you think I’m a selfish brute? – Of course not, Frank, you know I don’t.
Ти що, вважаєш мене грубою егоїсткою? – Звичайно ні, Франку, ти ж знаєш, що не
вважаю.
Can you believe me? – Sure I can.
Ти можеш мені повірити? – Безперечно, можу. / Звичайно, можу…
REPRESENTATION
a particular process of syntactic substitution alien to the Ukrainian language;
represents a kind of reduction in which the component of a syntaxeme is used to present the
content of the whole syntactic unit, which remains in the preceding syntaxeme but its
meaning is implicitly represented by some element.
E.g.:
"I don't know if he's hungry, but I am.”
“He thought of making another phone call, but he realized that he was afraid to.”
“I am a fool to tell you anything.” – “You’d be a bigger fool not to.”
CONTAMINATION
another internal process in which two syntaxemes merge into one predicative unit as in the
following sentence
E.g.:
The moon rose red. ( The moon rose + it was red. )
Наталка прибігла сердита, задихана. (Наталка прибігла + (Наталка) була сердита +
(Наталка) була задихана.)
COMPRESSION
a syntactic process closely connected with reduction and with the secondary predication
complex, but it exists only in English
most often observed in English with the Nominative Absolute Participial Constructions, which
are usually transformed in speech
E,g.:
He stood beside me in silence, his candle in his hand
(his candle being or having been in his hand)
SYNTACTIC RELATIONS
4 types:
predicative objective attributive adverbial
PREDICATIVE RELATIONS
primary
secondary
PRIMARY PREDICATION
finds its realization between the subject and predicate in any two-member sentence of any
paradigmatic form or structural type
E.g.:
"I never said I was a beauty”, he laughed.
Я ніколи не казав, що я є красенем, - сказав, усміхнувшись, він.
COMPLEX SUBJECT
E.g.: You seem not to have caught my idea.
Ти, здається, не зовсім зрозумів, що я хочу сказати / мою думку.
The operation is expected to start in 48 hours.
Очікується, що (антитерористична) операція почнеться за 48 годин.
COMPLEX PREDICATVE
E.g.: He stood by the creek and heard it ripple over the stones.
COMPLEX ATTRIBUTE
substantival: adverbial:
substantival
verbal
adverbial
WORD-GROUPS
consist of 2 or more grammatically connected notional parts of speech expressing some
content
may be:
syntactically free combinations of words
idiomatically bound
STRUCTURAL FORMS OF WG
simple / elemental
complicated
TYPES OF SYNTACTIC CONNECTION
Synthetic (predominates in Ukr):
agreement (гарна дівчина; these books)
government(читати книжку; see him)
Analytical (predominates in Eng – syndetic and asyndetic):
Prepositional government: look at the boy, go by plane, history of France;
Adjoinment (word order): take a book, see a man, rather doubtful, a cage bird, a bird cage,
Kyiv street traffic regulation rules;
Enclosure: the I-am–sorry response
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________
THE SENTENCE
OUTLINE
1. The definition of the sentence and its distinctive features
SENTENCE DEFINITION
connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects – logical, psychological and
philosophical
Acc. to academician G.Pocheptsov, the sentence is:
- the central syntactic construction
- used as the minimal communicative unit
- has its primary predication,
- actualises a definite structural scheme and
- possesses definite intonation characteristics
SENTENCE DEFINITION
G.Pocheptsov’s definition works only in case we do not take into account the difference
between the sentence and the utterance.
The distinction between the sentence and the utterance is of fundamental importance
because the sentence is an abstract theoretical entity defined within the theory of
grammar while the utterance is the actual use of the sentence.
In other words, the sentence is a unit of language while the utterance is a unit of speech.
d)Constructional analysis.
According to the constructional approach, not only the subject and the predicate but also all
the necessary constituents of primary predication constitute the main parts because they
are constructionally significant.
Therefore, the secondary parts of the sentence are sometimes as necessary and important
as the main ones. If we omit the object and the adverbial modifier in the following
sentences they will become grammatically and semantically unmarked:
Bill closed the door;
She behaved well.
STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION
English sentences are classified on the structural basis in agreement with their semantic
features (otherwise it would be just artificial pseudo-scholarship): sentences proper and
quasi-sentences.
Since predicativity is the main distinctive feature of the sentence, it would be logical to use
it as the basis for a most general structural classification of sentences.
SENTENCES PROPER
Subdivided into:
QUASI-SENTENCES
Sentences proper (further on just sentences) are characterized by predicativity, while quasi-
sentences are not.
They serve to express:
Address – vocative, e.g. John!,
Emotion – interjective, e.g. Oh! or
establishing or terminating speech contact – metacommunicative, e.g. Good day!.
DECLARATIVE / INTERROGATIVE
Sentences are subdivided into declarative, interrogative, optative, and imperative on
heterogeneous grounds.
Declarative and interrogative sentences differ in their informational aspect: the former
provide information, and the latter call for information.
Declarative sentences vary in the amount of information they carry. For example, the
sentence I am asking that because I want to know as an answer to the question Why are
you asking that? repeats the predicate of the preceding sentence thus providing redundant
information.
DECLARATIVE
Declarative sentences can be positive or negative, i.e. they affirm or negate the predicative
link between the subject and the predicate.
The term positive is preferable to the traditionally used term affirmative, otherwise we
would have to qualify the sentence Do you know him? as an "affirmative interrogative
sentence"
as opposed to the "negative-interrogative" sentence Don't you know him?
NEGATIVE
A sentence is called negative only if negation concerns the predication (the so-called
"general negation"),
e.g. You don't understand him at all.
Particular negation can refer to any member of the sentence except the predicate,
e.g. Not a person could be seen around.
Positive and negative sentences make an opposition
(POSITIVE :: NEGATIVE),
where negation is the marked member.
INTERROGATIVE
Interrogative sentences, in their turn, are not "pure questions": they do convey some
positive information, which is called the presupposition of the question.
For example, the question Why are you asking that? has a presupposition You are asking
that;
the question Why have you murdered your wife? has a presupposition You have murdered
your wife.
Interrogative sentences demonstrate a great variety of grammatical meanings and forms
as well as of pragmatic functions.
Due to that, only a few of their most general formal and semantic features can serve as a
basis for setting them apart:
a specific interrogative intonation contour;
the inverted order of words;
interrogative pronouns;
the content (information gap in the knowledge of the subject about the denotatum).
INTERROGATIVE TYPES
There are two main types of interrogative sentences –
general questions and
special questions,
– which differ in their formal and semantic features:
Alternative questions do not form a special type of questions. Alternativity can be brought
both into general and special questions, e.g. Is it Peter or John? Who(m) do you like
better, Peter or John?
Disjunctive (=tag) questions are a variety of general questions.
OPTATIVE / IMPERATIVE
Optative and imperative sentences deal with the volitional (волюнтативне) attitude of the
speaker to a certain event
The desire of the subject of optative sentences remains unrealized, while imperative
sentence are aimed at its realization.
QUASI-SENTENCES
Quasi-sentences are called sentences due to their:
ability to substitute a sentence (take its position in a speech chain);
discreteness;
intonation properties.
On the other hand, they cannot be said to have a full sentential status since they can be
embedded into a sentence as syntagmatically dependent elements. Hence they:
- do not have a nominative meaning (just evaluative);
- are context dependent, e.g. John! (amazement, indignation, approval, reproof);
QUASI-SENTENCES
- are easily substituted by non-verbal signals, e.g. John! Attracting attention: punch in
the ribs, tap on the shoulder, clearing one's throat; Well done! Yak! Good bye! Hi!
- can be combined, e.g. Oh, John! Hello Cliff!
- can be emotionally coloured (become exclamatory).
Exclamation is not a structural element of a sentence, it is optional. Yet certain types of
quasi-sentences demonstrate a tendency to being exclamatory (conventionality of the
exclamation mark), e.g. Dear sir! (Cf. Здравствуй, Аня!).
WORD ORDER
In English, there is a “standard” word order of
Subject + Verb + Object: The cat ate the rat – here we have a standard structure (N1 + V +
N2).
However, there are numerous other ways in which the semantic content of the sentence can
be expressed:
The rat was eaten by the cat.
It was the cat that ate the rat.
It was the rat that the cat ate.
What the cat did was ate the rat.
The cat, it ate the rat.
TWO RHEMES
However, sometimes the most important information is not expressed formally: The cat ate
the rat after all.
The rheme here is ‘the rat’.
At the same time there is very important information which is hidden or implicit: the cat was
not supposed to do it, or – it was hard for the cat to catch the rat, or – the cat is a
vegetarian (this hidden information will depend on the context or situation).
In other words, we may say that this sentence contains two informative centres, or two
rhemes – explicit and implicit.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________
The second sentence (of an occasional status, with a sentences-stress on the link-verb), as
different from the first, suggests an implication of a situational antithesis: the impression
may be called in question, or it may be contrasted against another trait of the person not
so agreeable as the one mentioned, etc.
This is revealed, in particular, by the fact that object clauses can be introduced not only
non-prepositionally, but also, if not so freely, prepositionally.
Cf.: They will accept with grace whatever he may offer.
She stared at what seemed a faded photo of Uncle Jo taken half a century before.
I am simply puzzled by what you are telling me about the Car fairs.
The object clause in the first of the cited sentences is of a substantive background (We
should address - whom), whereas the object clause in the second sentence is of
adverbial-local background (They should spend their vacation - where).
The first object clause in the above two sentences is of substantive background, while the
second one is of an adverbial -causal background.
DECRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTIVE
Descriptive clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first, "ordinary"
descriptive clauses; second, "continuative" descriptive clauses.
The ordinary descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of
nounal antecedents. The qualifications may present a constant situational feature or
a temporary situational feature of different contextual relations and implications.
Cf.: It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived
in.
He wore a blue shirt the collar of which was open at the throat.
They were playing such a game as could only puzzle us.
CONTINUATIVE ATTRIBUTIVE
The continuative attributive clause presents a situation on an «equal domination basis with
its principal clause, and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It expresses a
new predicative event (connected with the antecedent) which somehow continues
the chain of situations reflected by the sentence as a whole.
Cf.: In turn, the girls came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil,
and scratched his head with it, getting no help from me audience, who applauded
each girl impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if they could hot see hundreds any
day round the swimming pool (M. Dickens).
The second group of adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison.
The common semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification ", since
they give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause.
The identification of these clauses can be achieved by applying the traditional question-
transformation test of the how-type, with the corresponding variations of specifying
character.
Cf.: He spent the Saturday night as was his want. > How did he spend the Saturday night?
You talk to people as if they were a group. > How do you talk to people?
I planned to give my mother a length of silk for a dress, as thick and heavy as it was possible
to buy. > How thick and heavy the length of silk was intended to be?
All the adverbial qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and "speculative",
depending on the real or unreal prepositional event described by them.
The third and most numerous group of adverbial clauses includes "classical" clauses of
different circumstantial semantics, i.e. semantics connected with the meaning of
the principal clause by various circumstantial associations; here belong clauses оf
attendant event, condition, cause, reason, result (consequence), concession,
purpose.
Thus, the common semantic basis of all these clauses can be defined as "circumstance".
The whole group should be divided into two subgroups:
- the first being composed by clauses of "attendant circumstance";
- the second, by clauses of "Immediate circumstance".
CONNECTORS
The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and
semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character.
The main coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are:
and, but, or, nor, neither, for, either ... or, neither ... nor, etc.
The main adverbial coordinators are:
then, yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc.
ADVERBIAL COORDINATORS
The adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conjunctions, as a rule can shift their
position in the sentence (the exceptions are the connectors yet and so).
Cf.: Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, however the host took no notice of it. > Mrs. Dyre
stepped into the room, the host, however, took no notice of it.
________________________________________________________________________
______
TYPOLOGY OF THE MAIN PARTS OF THE SENTENCE
Traditional Subdivision
Isomorphic functional meaning and lexico-grammatical nature of all parts of the sentence for
both languages
a) the main parts (the subject and the predicate – interdependent, bearing predication)
b) the secondary parts (the object, the attribute, different adverbial modifiers – dependent on
the subject, on the predicate or on one another part of the sentence)
Example
Everyone knows his own business best.
Everyone knows – the primary predication (S – P) word-group
Knows < his own business – the predicate-object word-group
His own > business – the attributive word-group
Knows < best – the predicate-adverbial modifier word-group
THE SUBJECT
Structural Forms of the Subject :Isomorphic and allomorphic features
Some ways of expressing the subject found only in English:
1) the Indefinite Pronouns (one, you, they)
2) the Impersonal or Anticipatory / Introductory Pronoun (it)
3) the Formal / Introductory Pronoun (there)
4) the Infinitival Secondary Predication For-phrase
5) the Subjective with the Infinitive / Participle Construction Forming
6) the Gerundial Construction
________________________________________________________________________
___
TYPOLOGY OF THE SECONDARY ARTS OF THE SENTENCE
ENGLISH
The analytical way of connection: next morning, cigarette smoke, blew past my window, ask me
about it, ask me tomorrow.
The one word-group is co-ordinate by its structural form: come and ask.
UKRAINIAN
Predominant in all subordinate word-groups are synthetic as well as analytical and synthetic,
i.e. combined ways of joining componential parts: наступного ранку (syntactic agreement),
димок від сигарет (synthetic and analytical connections/joining, i.e. prepositional
government), запитай мене (synthetic connection/government in both languages), запитай
взавтра (asyndetic connection, adjoinment) in both contrasted languages
NOTE
The form of the adjoined component in Ukrainian may be synthetically marked.
The lexico-grammatic (and semantic) nature of adverbial complements in both languages is
mostly identical.
Of isomorphic nature in both languages are also homogeneous adjuncts.
Ukrainian attributive adjuncts mostly agree with the head noun in number, case and gender.
Appositional adjuncts in English and Ukrainian specify/identify, explain or make more vivid
and expressive the head component.
English appositional adjuncts may often be joined by means of prepositions.
Detached apposition in Ukrainian may often be joined with the subordinating part/noun with
the help of the conjunctions: або, чи, тобто, як, and by specifying words as як от, а саме,
особливо, навіть, переважно, родом, на ймення, на прізвище, etc.
The English specifiers are semantically similar: quite, almost, namely, by name, etc.
Anybody else, except Ackly, would've taken the goddam hint Будь-хто, крім Еклі, зрозумів би
проклятий натяк.
Except for the handwriting, there wasn't the slightest trace of femininity. Ніщо, крім
почерку, не виказувало, що автор – жінка (Wilson)
2. Co-ordinate Predicates. May also be simple, expanded or extended by their structure. Eg:
In his small room Martin lived, slept, studied, wrote and kept house. (London) – У своїй
кімнатці Мартін жив, спав, студіював, писав і господарював.
Direct addresses are often used in both languages to convey modality and emotions: disgust,
dissatisfaction, joy, sorrow, fright, prohibition and others.
E.g.: "Thanks, Mike, thanks!" "Дякую, Майку, дякую!" "Oh, Guy, don't blame me. It really is not
my fault." "Ой, Гаю, не вини мене. Тут я і справді не винна."