Paradigmatic approach in syntax. The initial basic element of syntactic derivation. Derivational transformations. Clausalization and phrasalization

Semantic classification of simple sentences.

The semantic classification of simple sentences is based on principal parts semantics.

1) On the basis of subject categorial meaning, sentences are divided into impersonal: It drizzles. There is no use crying over spilt milk; and personal.

Impersonal sentences may be further subdivided into factual: It drizzles; and perceptional: It looks like rain.

Personal sentences are further subdivided into human and non-human.

Human sentences are further subdivided into definite: I know it; and indefinite: One never knows such things for sure.

Non-human sentences are further subdivided into animate: A cat entered the room; and inanimate: The wind opened the door.

2) On the basis of predicate categorial meaning, sentences are divided into process featuring (“ verbal ”) and substance featuring (“ nominal ”).

Process featuring sentences are further subdivided into actional: I play ball and statal: I enjoy your party.

Substance featuring sentences are further subdivided into factual: She is clever and perceptional: She seems to be clever.

In practical courses on grammar, various subdivisions of simple sentences are usually based on the structure of the predicate: predicates are subdivided into simple (I read) and compound, which are further subdivided into compound verbal predicates (She started crying) and compound nominal predicates with pure and specifying link verbs (She looked beautiful).

3) On the basis of subject-object relations, simple sentences are divided into subjective: He is a writer; objective: He is writing a book; and neutral or “ potentially” objective: He is writing.

[1] The “drama” terminology in syntax was first proposed by L. Tesnière.

[2] C. J. Fillmore used the term ‘case’ because the semantic roles of the types described in many languages (in particular, in Latin) are marked by case forms of the noun. This is not ‘case’ in the morphological treatment of the term.

[3] It must be noted, though, that there is no definite list of semantic cases; their number, descriptions and names differ from one author to another.

Traditionally, the sentence was studied only syntagmatically, as a string of constituent parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic functions. F. de Saussure stressed the fact that paradigmatics is quite natural for morphology, while syntax should be studied primarily as the linear connections of words. Still, some systemic relations between syntactic structures were traditionally described derivationally to reveal the functional semantics of the sentence. For example, interrogative and imperative sentence structures were described as derived from declarative ones; negative sentences were described as derived from affirmative ones; emotionally loaded sentences were described as derived from those emotionally neutral, etc.

In order to speak about sentence patterns opposed in syntactic paradigms in accord with their differential features, it is necessary to single out the initial basic element of syntactic derivation, the “sentence-root”, which undergoes various transformations and serves as the basis for identifying syntactic categorial oppositions. This element is known under different names: “the basic syntactic pattern”, “the elementary sentence model”, “the base sentence”, or “the kernel sentence”. Structurally, the kernel sentence coincides with the elementary sentence, organized by the obligatory valencies of the predicate verb: Mary put the book on the table.

The derivation of genuine sentences in “surface” speech out of kernel sentences in “deep” speech can be analyzed as a process consisting of elementary transformational steps, or syntactic derivational procedures. These include: 1) morphological arrangement of the sentence parts expressing syntactically relevant categories, primarily the morphological changes of the finite form of the verb performing the function of the predicate (tense, aspect, voice, and mood): Mary put the book on the table - Mary would have put the book on the table …; 2) the use of functional words (functional expansion), which transform syntactic constructions the same way as grammatical morphemes transform words: Mary put the book on the table. - Did Mary put the book on the table?; 3) the process of substitution, including the use of personal, demonstrative and indefinite pronouns and of various substitutive half-notional words: Mary put the book on the table. - Mary put it on the table; 4) deletion, i.e. elimination of some elements in various contextual conditions: Put the book on the table!; 5) the process of positional arrangement, involving changes of the word order: Mary put the book on the table. - On the table Mary put the book; 6) the process of intonational arrangement, i.e. application of various functional tones and accents: Mary put the book on the table. - Mary put the book on the table?(!)

All these procedures are functionally relevant: they serve as markers of syntactically meaningful dynamic features of the sentence. These derivational steps may be employed either alone or in combination with each other; for example, the pronominal question Where did Mary put the book? can be described as the transform of the kernel sentence Mary put the book on the table, derived with the help of a special functional word (the auxiliary verb did), substitution (the interrogative substitutive adverb where), and the use of special positional and intonational arrangement.

In syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences and expanded base sentences are transformed into clauses and phrases. The transformation of a base sentence into a clause can be called “ clausalization ”; it changes a sentence into a clause in the process of the subordinative or coordinative combination of sentences. The main transformational procedure of clausalization is the use of conjunctive words. In addition, the change of the word order, the change of intonational arrangement, deletion, substitution and other derivational procedures may be involved. Cf.: The team won. + It caused a sensation. - The team won and it caused a sensation; When the team won, it caused a sensation.

The transformation of a base sentence into a phrase can be called “ phrasalization ”; it changes the sentence into a phrase in the process of building the syntactic constructions of various degrees of complexity: expanded simple sentences or semi-composite sentences. Phrasalization may be of several types; one of them, nominalization, i.e. the transformation of a sentence into a nominal phrase. By complete nominalization the kernel sentence is changed into a regular noun phrase and is completely deprived of its predicative semantics: The team won. - the team’s victory; by partial nominalization the sentence is changed into a semi-predicative gerundial or infinitive phrase and is deprived of part of its predicative semantics: the team’s winning; for the team to win. The other types of phrasalization include transformations of kernel sentences into various participial and infinitive constructions, which make up the semi-clauses of complex objects, adverbial constructions, and some other semi-predicative constructions: Having won, the team caused a sensation.

The formation of more complex clausal structures out of simpler ones involves two base sentences and resembles the process of a compound word being built on the base of two stems (to fall + water - a waterfall): The team won. + It caused a sensation. - The team won and it caused a sensation; When the team won, it caused a sensation; Having won, the team caused a sensation; The team’s winning caused a sensation.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11