Typology of the sentence 1 страница

THE SENTENCE

SYNTAX

1. Syntax as a branch of grammar.
2. Units of syntactic description.
3. The theory of phrase.
4. Types of syntactic relations (linkage).

1. Syntax as a branch of grammar

Since the time N. Chomsky’s book on syntactic structures appeared in the mid -50s modern grammar has been more focused on “form-meaning configurations larger than morphemes and words” [Construction Grammars 2005: 10]. Syntax has become a full-blown object of linguistic studies. There are various definitions of syntax as a branch of grammar. Basically “syntax can be defined as the branch of linguistics that studies how the words of a language can be combined to make larger units, such as phrases, clauses, and sentences” [The Handbook of Linguistics 2004: 265]. A more traditional definition interprets syntax as the part of grammar dealing with phrases or sentences. Before the 50-s there existed an assumption that syntax finishes at the sentence level. Now the achievements of text linguistics entail a broader understanding of the sphere of application of syntax. In some linguistic studies syntax also distinguishes the level of the text though it may be considered an issue of linguistic dispute. Traditionally syntactic descriptions begin with the phrase level and pass over to the sentence level. Though there are grammar books that describe the construction of supraphrasal units [Гак 2000: 468] and texts in their Syntax section (see [Резник и др. 1998: 165-221]).

Moreover there is another side of syntactic studies. Syntax explores the relations of words in syntactic structures. It is the study of rules and patterns governing the arrangement of words in syntactic units. Linguists place syntax in relation to morphology and discourse analysis: ‘morphology because it builds the words that are the starting point of syntax, and discourse analysis because it involves the construction of sentences into even larger entities, such as texts’ [The Handbook of Linguistics 2004: 266].

A special part of syntactic studies is devoted to methods of syntactic description closely connected to the developments of syntactic theory. For instance, such methods as IC-analysis, transformations, and textual analysis came into existence owing to the achievements of linguistic theory. These methods are successfully applied and yield valid and reliable results.

Thus modern theory of syntactic description has obviously broadened its borders from the point of view of the object of study as well as from the point of view the problems solved and methods applied [Москальская 1981: 3].

1. Units of syntactic description

As syntax studies phrases and sentences both the syntactic units are the objects of syntactic description. ‘The phrase is usually understood as a combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of a word” [Блох 2004: 245]. The main object of syntax is the sentence which is defined as “the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose” [Блох 2004: 245-246].

The difference between phrases and sentences is that the phrase is a nominative unit that fulfils the function of nomination whereas the sentence is also a communicative unit: the sentence names a certain situation and shows its relation to reality. Thus the sentence serves the communicative purpose to convey a message. This entails another specific feature of the sentence: it is marked by some intonation contour. Compared to sentences, phrases make up the lower level of syntactic analysis. A phrase may be part of the sentence or equal to the sentence. The sentence, on the other hand, may be realized through a phrase, a number of related phrases, and also with the help of a single word.

The list of units of syntactic description may be extended. Thus V.G. Gak adds a member of the sentence and a supraphrasal unit as basic units of syntactic description alongside the phrase and the sentence [Гак 2000: 468].

Quite a new syntactic unit has made its way into the list of syntactic items in ‘ Cambridge Grammar of English’. The authors of this latest edition single out what they call clusters. By way of explanation they point out that “words cluster together, those clusters of words repeat themselves time and time again, and some of the frequently repeated clusters reveal grammatical regularities”. Nevertheless the authors state that “the most frequently repeated clusters lack grammatical completeness, in the sense that they are not complete phrases or clauses” [Cambridge Grammar 2007: 828]. Clusters are very important for everyday usage, informal conversation contain a high number of such clusters, e.g. kind of, sort of, and then, on the, you know what, you know, that’s what, like that, but I mean, a bit of, it was a, the top of the, well I don’t know, this that and the other, at the end of the, etc. Clusters are used to express relations of time (I’ll see you in the morning), place (There was nobody on the beach), possession, agency, purpose, goal (It was a surprise for the kids), direction, they reflect interpersonal relations (you know, you know what I meant, I don’t know what), enable speakers to refer vaguely (sort of, kind of, and stuff, and things) to things without having to be explicit, link clauses or sentences (and it was, as well as), function as response elicitors (shall I, what do you…?). Evidently, the term cluster “refers to unitary or fragmentary and grammatically incomplete structures”. They are “retrieved from memory as whole units and contribute to fluency” [Cambridge Grammar 2007: 895].

This conception throws some light on oral speech structuring mostly in everyday discourse (there are clusters in academic English as well, though). In some respect the above mentioned units are similar to conventional discourse markers, but on the other hand due to their syntactic incompleteness they stand apart from the latter. On the whole, vague reasoning standing behind this conception makes it rather doubtful but quite handy for the teaching purposes.

1. The theory of phrase

Modern linguists assume that the organized whole is greater than the mere sum of its parts. Phonemes taken separately don’t have any meaning. But when they are organized into morphemes they express a certain meaning. When morphemes are, in their turn, organized, a new kind of meaning emerges. When words are organized, they acquire a new meaning while separate words only have their own lexical meaning.

E.g. A table stands for a piece of furniture, but in King Arthur and his Round Table, the word table means knights. Besides, if we take words like busy, go, people, watch, they have only their separate meanings. But if we arrange them into a syntactic structure, e.g. busy people, or watch busy people go, they acquire some additional meaning [Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов 1981: 106].

So the important point to make here is that in English syntactic structures words are bound up by means of word order and proximity.

Another important point in the study of phrases is the distinction of grammatical and lexicological aspects of analysis. The difference between them boils down to the following point. Grammar is to study those aspects of phrases that spring from the grammatical peculiarities of the words making up the phrase as a whole, while lexicology has to deal with the lexical meaning of the words and their semantic grouping.

Thus, for example, B.A. Ilyish points out that from the grammatical point of view the two phrases read letters and invite friends are identical since they are built according to the same pattern ‘verb + noun’ indicating the object of an action. From the lexicological point of view, on the other hand, they are different as the constituting words belong to totally different semantic spheres. This is the basic difference between the grammatical and the lexicological approach to phrases. However, it is not always easy to draw the demarcation line while carrying out concrete research in this sphere.

The theory of phrase or a word combination in Russian linguistics has a long tradition going back to the XVIII^th century. According to Russian scholars, the term word combination can be applied only to such groups of words, which contain at least two notional words forming a grammatical unit. It’s obvious that Russian linguists restrict the use of the term ‘word combination’ to combinations of notional words. This makes the traditional approach to the definition of word combinations. For instance, acad. V.V. Vinogradov insisted on applying the term phrase to a limited number of structures. He excluded from phrases (1) combinations of formal and notional words, (2) predicative structures, and (3) coordinate structures, though he felt dubious[63] about it. Basically, these are the points of debate within the theory of phrase.

Thus many Russian linguists do not consider combinations of a notional word with a formal word as phrases. V.D. Arakin interprets a phrase as a combination of two or more notional words related to one another and performing the nominative function [Аракин 2000: 139]. A similar approach is taken by L.S. Barkhudarov: he defined a phrase as a combination of syntactically related notional words which does not make up a sentence in its own turn [Бархударов 1966: 44]. N.A. Kobrina et al also insist on the definition of the phrase as “a group of two or more notional words functioning as a whole” [Грамматика английского языка 1986: 26].

By contrast, other Russian grammarians and the majority of Western scholars consider that every combination of two or more words constitutes a unit that is termed phrase. In other words, a phrase is not only limited to combinations of notional words or a sharp distinction is not drawn between the two types of word groups such as wise men and to the lighthouse or under the table.

This approach marks the studies of such Soviet linguists as acad. V.M. Zhirmunsky, prof. B.A. Ilyish and prof. V.V. Burlakova who do not limit the definition of a phrase and think that its constituents may belong to any part of speech. For example, this is the definition of a phrase given by B.A. Ilyish: the term ‘phrase’ is applied to every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of a certain word (as for instance, the perfect forms of a verb). The constituent elements of a phrase may belong to any part of speech.

This makes a wide definition of a phrase, and it appears to be more adequate to a vast number of modern linguists. Restricting the notion of a phrase to those groups which contain at least two notional words has some drawbacks, for example the group ‘preposition + noun’ remains outside the classification and is therefore neglected in grammatical theory.

Prof. V.V. Burlakova shares B.A. Ilyish’s viewpoint. She defines a phrase as any combination of words, not only a subordinate structure. At the level of phrase structure we are interested only in the linear perspective of words. That’s why modern linguists tend to refer to phrases all combinations of words (irrespective of the limitation proposed by acad. V.V. Vinogradov). Grammarians make it a point that if combinations of words based on coordinate relations are excluded from consideration then they constitute an area which is completely overlooked in grammar theory. Nevertheless one has to admit that there are certain rules governing coordinate phrases as well both of syndetic and asyndetic types. E.g. phrases like nice new (house), nice long (summer holiday), delicious hot (vegetable soup)[64] are grammatical in contrast to phrases in which the word order becomes reverse, e.g. * new nice, * long nice, * hot delicious.

Another debatable problem in linguistics is whether a predicative combination of words forms a word combination. One view is that the phrase type ‘noun + verb’ (which is sometimes called a predicative phrase) exists and should be studied just like any other type of phrase. The other view is that no such type as ‘noun + verb’ exists as this combination constitutes a sentence rather than a phrase.

It is generally known that a sentence is based on predication, and predication, in its shortest and easiest definition, consists in saying something about something, as its purpose is communication. A word combination has no such aim. Word combinations are more like words because they are employed for naming things, actions, properties, etc. Thus some Russian grammarians seem justified in postulating the separate existence of the two entities which bear the names of ‘word combination’ and ‘sentence’ respectfully.

Nevertheless not all Russian linguists share this view point. This is, for one, the approach suggested by B.A. Ilyish. He is of the opinion that if we take the combination ‘noun + verb’ as a sentence, which is sometimes possible, that means that we are analyzing it at a different level, namely, at the sentence level. And what can be discovered at the sentence level cannot affect analysis at the phrase level or instead, take its place. In other words, the levels of analysis must not be mixed. Besides, for example the group a man writes is taken at the phrase level, this means that each of the components can be changed in accordance with its paradigm in any way so long as the connection with the other component does not prevent this. In the given case, the first component man can be changed according to its number, i.e. it can appear in the plural form, and the second component writes can be changed according to the verbal categories of aspect, tense, correlation, and mood. Thus the groups a man writes, men write, a man wrote, men are writing, etc. are all variants of the same phrase, just as men, a man are forms of the same noun; writes, wrote, are writing, has been writing are forms of the same verb [Ильиш 1971: 173-174].

It is also important to note that a phrase as such has no intonation of its own, no more than a word as such has one. B.A. Ilyish holds that this example is sufficient to show the difference between a phrase of the pattern ‘noun + verb’ and a sentence. The conclusion is that the existence of phrases of this type finds a solid base.

The general conclusion is as follows: if the former approach is taken as the basis for reasoning, admittedly phrases of the pattern ‘noun + verb’ do not exist. They are sentences. On the other hand, according to the latter approach the existence of phrases of the ‘noun + verb’ pattern is justified. Both these interpretations co-exist in modern linguistic theory.

As for the majority of Western scholars, they make no difference between subject-predicate combinations of words and any other word-combinations. They consider that every combination of two or more words constitutes a unit which they term ‘a phrase’. Nevertheless in D. Crystal’s ‘ Encyclopedia of the English Language’ his definition of the phrase rules out predicative constructions from the domain of the phrase: “a phrase is a syntactic construction which typically contains more than one word, but which lacks the subject-predicate structure usually found in a clause” [Crystal 1995: 222].

These are the major questionable areas concerning the composition of phrases. Other aspects of phrases attract attention on the part of grammarians as well. Linguists make numerous attempts at the analysis and work out various approaches to the classification of the syntactic units in question.

The theory of phrase got its shape with the publication of ‘Language’ by Leonard Bloomfield in 1933. Later on American structuralists further developed Bloomfield’s theory of phrase. According to L. Bloomfield in all the languages there are only two types of phrases: endocentric and exocentric. In endocentric phrases the phrase belongs to the same form-class as one or more of its constituents.

E.g. Poor John ran away.

In order to know whether the phrase Poor John is endocentric or exocentric it is necessary to examine how it functions in a larger structure:

E.g. Tom and Mary ran away. → Tom ran away. → Mary ran away.

L. Bloomfield subdivided endocentric phrases into two subgroups: (1) subordinate: Poor John, and (2) coordinate: Tom and Mary.

In exocentric constructions the phrase does not share the form-class of any of its constituents:

E.g. John ran – predicative structure,

beside John, with me, by running away – prepositional phrase.

But some phrases are difficult to classify. E.g. to catch (trans.) a ball – endocentric (based on subordination), whereas The boy caught a ball – the phrase can’t be substituted for by any of its members and consequently cannot be classified as an endocentric phrase. This is a marginal case.

L. Bloomfield’s classification of phrases is based on substitution since he classifies phrases in accordance with their functioning at a higher level in larger structures. Nevertheless when discussing kinds of phrases L. Bloomfield himself never speaks of substitution as a technique applied in his analysis. But in reality it is so. With the help of this technique L. Bloomfield finds out if any of the constituents of a phrase can function at a higher level in the same way as the whole phrase.

If a phrase appears in a different syntactic position than any of its constituents, it is called exocentric. E.g. John ran is neither a nominative expression (like John) nor a finite verb expression (like ran). Therefore it is an exocentric construction. Among exocentric phrases there are also phrases of the following kind: beside John, with me, in the house, by running away. They are also exocentric as the phrase has a function different from either of its constituents and thus none of the elements constituting it can be used to substitute for the whole phrase at a higher level of analysis.

L. Bloomfield points out that in any language there are more endocentric constructions than exocentric ones. Thus it is but natural that he focuses his attention on the description of endocentric phrases. He distinguishes two kinds of endocentric phrases: (1) coordinate (or serial) and (2) subordinative (or attributive). In coordinate phrases the elements constituting the phrases are on the same footing, e.g. boys and girls, books, papers, pens, pencils (were lying …).

The structure of subordinative endocentric constructions is different as it is based on different kind of syntactic relations between its elements since they are not on the same footing. Only one element, which is called ‘the head’, can be used instead of the whole phrase; the other elements in the phrase are subordinate to the head, e.g. poor John where John is the head and the element poor is its attribute. The attribute in its turn may be a subordinate phrase. Thus the phrase very fresh milk consists of the head milk and the attribute very fresh, and this phrase in its turn consists of the head fresh and the attribute very. In this way there can be several ranks of subordinative position.

Closing the discussion, it is necessary to point out that L. Bloomfield advanced an interesting and original theory of phrase. He put the phrase study on a sound basis and, besides, he summarized the main results of linguistic research. L. Bloomfield’s theory of phrase is insightful as it prepared the ground for further discussion and indicated some ways of exploration of the phrase which was further undertaken by Harold Whitehall (1956), Paul Roberts (1958), Charles Hockett (1959).

Given the fact that “there are considerable differences between the syntactic patterns which can occur within each type of phrase, ranging from the very limited possibilities of pronoun phrases to the highly variable patterns found within noun phrases” [Crystal 1995: 222] it is quite obvious that there are diverse classifications of phrases which are built on various criteria. Linguists set the goal of making comprehensive classifications that could comprise many facets of a phrase structure. Fundamental treatment of phrases can be found in [Бурлакова 1975, 1984] which is reflected in [Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов 1981].

By way of summing up it should be pointed out that a phrase is a syntactic unit formed in keeping with laws of grammar. This makes a phrase a grammatical structure. On the other hand, it consists of constituent elements that are characterized by their combinatory power. This entails the study of the morphological make-up of phrases. Phrases are devoid of the communicative function that puts them at a different level of linguistic analysis if compared to sentences.

1. Types of syntactic relations (linkage)

The Greek word syntaxis means ‘order’, ‘combination’, ‘building’, ‘arrangement’. Syntax as part of grammar has to do with syntactic units - phrases and sentences - that consist of words related to each other in a certain way. Thus the notion of relation and the way it is expressed are basic for syntactic description [Левицкий 2002: 17]. Relations of words are called syntactic relations (or linkage).

The weakest kind of linkage exists in those combinations in which they depend only on the form-class of words, where there are no formal signs of linkage.

E.g. black cat – the first element is the attribute to the second because we know beforehand that if an adjective is placed before a noun, the adjective is an attribute. This is called linkage by selection because certain forms select other forms. The same refers to to run quickly. Very often this kind of linkage produces ambiguity, e.g. yellow clothes may be (1 ) yellow, adj. → attribute to clothes, (2) yellow, verb → clothes is an object to yellow. A larger context is required to avoid ambiguity: She likes yellow clothes. Strong soup will yellow clothes. The answer to the question lies outside the two-element construction, the ambiguity is removed by context. This type is called linkage by context. Still a stronger linkage is expressed by markers (e.g. conjunctions), e.g. men and women.

A further type of linkage is expressed by inflexion. Here agreement and government are involved though they are not typical of English as an analytical language. By agreement we mean a method of expressing a syntactic relationship that consists in making the subordinate word take a form similar to that of the word to which it is subordinate. In other words, by agreement linguists mean those cases when two words are marked for the same grammatical category [Dixon 2009: 331]. In Modern English this can refer to the category of number; a subordinate word agrees in number with its head word if it has different number forms at all.

E.g. this (that) book – these (those) books.

The sphere of agreement in Modern English is extremely small. It is restricted to two pronouns – this and that which agree with their head word in number when they are used in front of it as the first components of a phrase of which the noun is the center.

B.A. Ilyish points out that the problem of agreement of the verb with the noun or pronoun denoting the subject of the action (a child plays, children play) is controversial. Usually it is treated as agreement of the predicate with the subject, i.e. as a phenomenon of sentence structure. However if we assume that agreement and government belong to the phrase level rather than to the sentence level, and that phrases of the pattern ‘noun + verb’ do exist, we have to treat this problem in a bit different way.

The controversy is this: does the verb stand in the plural number because the noun denoting the subject of the action is plural, so that the verb is in the full sense of the word subordinate to the noun? Or does the verb in its right express by its category of number the singularity or plurality of the doer (doers)?

There are some phenomena in Modern English that would seem to show that the verb does not always follow the noun in the category of number. Such examples as My family are early risers or, on the one hand, and The United Nations is an international organization, on the other, prove that the verb can be independent of the noun in this respect: though the noun is in the singular, the verb may be in the plural if the doer is understood to be plural. Though the noun is plural the verb may be singular if the doer is understood to be singular. Examples of such usage are arguments in favor of the view that there is no agreement in number of the verb with the noun expressing the doer of the action.

The fact that sentences like My family is small and My family are early risers exist side by side proves that there is no agreement of the verb with the noun in this case: the verb shows whether the subject of the action is thought of as singular or plural, no matter what the category of number of the noun may be.

By government we understand the use of a certain form of a subordinate word required by its head word but not coinciding with the form of the head word itself – that is the difference between agreement and government. The role of government in Modern English is almost as insignificant as that of agreement. The only thing that may be termed ‘government’ in Modern English is the use of the Objective Case of personal pronouns and of the pronoun who where they are subordinate to a verb or follow a preposition, e.g. find him, invite him, whom did you see?.

There may be another approach to the interpretation and classification of syntactic relations. Traditional grammar distinguishes between coordinate, subordinate and predicative relations [Бархударов 1966: 45, Левицкий 2005: 101]. Needless to say that the recognition of predicative relations depends on the way the problem of a predicative phrase is solved. If the existence of a predicative phrase is denied, then predicative relations should be recognized as typical only of sentences. Coordinate relations presuppose loose connection of elements. Forms of subordinate relations are more specific. There are three basic types of subordinate relations: adjoinment, agreement and government [Левицкий 2005: 102]. In English, grammarians also single out relations of enclosure (e.g. a big book) when an element or some elements of the phrase are inserted between other elements.

A comprehensive study of syntactic relations within a phrase was undertaken by V.V. Burlakova [Бурлакова 1975, 1984]. First she singled out three major types of syntactic relations: coordination, subordination and interdependence. She came up with the latter term by analogy to L. Hjelmslev’s types of relations between linguistic elements. She believed that this was a better term than ‘predicative relations’ as it mad it possible to get rid of the notion of predication, typical of the sentence structure and reflecting the subsequent relations between the subject and the predicate. The terms ‘coordination – subordination - interdependence’ are homogeneous as they point to the mutual status of the elements constituting a phrase [Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов 1981: 114-115]. Then V.V. Burlakova added a fourth type of syntactic relation, i.e. accumulation. This type of relations is not marked and may be identified against a background of a larger syntactic structure, e.g. these important (decisions), some old (cards). Thus in Burlakova’s opinion, there are four types of syntactic relations: interdependence – coordination – subordination – accumulation [Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов 1981: 116-118].

Thus the inventory of types of syntactic relations and their overall number vary quite considerably. This is a good proof of an insightful remark made by B.L. Whorf. He wrote, “Every language is a vast pattern-system”[65]. Understanding and describing this pattern requires a considerable effort on the part of linguists.

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14