Category of state

Open to thought and discussion is the linguistic nature of such words in the English vocabulary as are generally registered in dictionaries either as predicative adjectives or adverbs, e. g.: ablase в огні, abloom

¹ See: В. В. Виноградов. Грамматическое учение о слове. M., 1947, 166

в цвіту, aboil в кипінні, adrift на плаву, aghast охоплений жахом, afire в огні, aflame в огні, afloat на воді, на плаву, afraid зляканий, agog в сподіванні, в збудженні, ajar трохи відкритий, ahead спереду, попереду, akin споріднений, alight засвічений, в огні, alike подібний, alive живий, alone один, aloof в стороні, amiss недоречний, не до діла, не до ладу, asleep сплячий, astir в русі, athirst спраглі вий, жадаючий, awake несплячий, пильний, насторожений, aware обізнаний, etc.

From a historical point of view it is interesting to note that most predicative adjectives of this kind have originated from prepositional phrases, e. g.: abloom < in bloom, aboil < on the boil, afire < on fire, aflame < in flame, ajar < on the jar, asleep < in sleep, etc. Some others go back to participial forms, e. g.: aghast (agast, agasted < past participle of agasten — "to terrify"), afraid < old past participle of affray, etc.

The functioning units of the given type make up a special class of words which L. V. Sčerba aptly called "category of state". And there seems no small justification to introduce this term ¹.

A bit of study will lead us to the conclusion that according to the positions they can fill and the function they can perform in various structures they do not need to be classed as adjectives or adverbs.

When we come to examine the patterns in which words of this morphological class are involved, we find that their operation in the structure of speech exhibits special formal qualities distinguishing them from adjectives and adverbs with which they contrast. The first to be mentioned here is that they are marked by grammatical indication of time and mood in which the copula-verb or its "meaningful absence" is always a necessary component.

Words of the category of state may denote: a) physical state of persons and things, e. g.: alive, asleep, athirst, awake; afire, aflame, alight, aglow, ablaze, etc.; b) psychological state: afraid, agape, agog, aghast, ashamed, ashudder, atremble, aware, etc.; c) state in motion, e. g.: afoot, astir, afloat, etc. Some words of this class denote position in space, e. g.: aloof, astray, astride, askew, etc.

The formal arrangements in which these words occur may be briefly characterised as follows:

a) following a copula-verb, they generally function as subjective or objective predicatives. In this function they easily combine with copulative verbs cf various kind, e. g.: Her little resolute face under its copper crown was suspiciously eager and aglow. (Galsworthy). The lamps were still alight all pale, but not a soul stirred — no living thing in sight. (Galsworthy) The butler came to lay the table for dinner, and seeing his master apparently asleep, exercised extreme caution in his movement. (Galsworthy) Then he became aware of something else. A true artist never stands aloof from the people.

b) words of the category of state are also used as ordinary attributes in post-position or emphatic attributes. In the latter case they may take

¹ Л. В. Щерба. О частях речи в русском языке. В сб.: «Русская речь», вып. 1928.

is also based on a certain grammatical pattern but it is intended for nomination (naming an action directed at the object and the object itself).

It is to be noted, however, that in certain contexts and speech situation the latter may also function as a unit carrying information.

Consider the following: I (1) The student is writing; (2) There is a book on the table; (3) It is

cold. II. I'll not go anywhere; (4) Only with you; When are you going to leave?

(5) Tomorrow morning. Which way are you going? (6) — To the left.

How is he? (7) — Up to the mark. (8) To know what was on her mind!

The above given syntactic structures marked by (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) carry the necessary information and all have a communicative value. It should be clear, however, that the two types of syntactic structures differ essentially in their purely grammatical status.

The structural patterns underlying sentences (1), (2) and (3) exist in the language as system and are always intended for communication; those in (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) are not specially intended for information and may function as such only in certain contexts, linguistic or situational (4, 5), in a dependent part of a dialogue (5, 6, 7) or say, in a composite sentence (8), etc.

Word-combinations are constructed according to the rules of a given language and function very much in the same way as the ultimate unit — the word.

The concept of the word combination was first suggested by V. V. Vіnogradov¹ who defined it as "a free equivalent of a phraseological unit", the latter, in its turn was viewed as "a free equivalent of a word". The word-combination and the word are thus assumed to be functionally identical. This can be shown by comparing, for instance, the verb to decide and the word-combination to take a decision; to glance and to cast a glance, etc.

Major Syntax studies linguistic units of communicative value. In Major Syntax we are concerned with the rules according to which words and word-combinations are actualised in speech, i. e. used as parts of predicative units — units of communication integrated into a given situation and expressing the purposeful intention of the speaker in the form of sentences. This division makes distinction combining words to form non-predicative (nominative) complex units, on the one hand, and combining words to express predication, on the other.

In terms of meaning, the sentence is traditionally defined as the expression of a complete thought. But this seems to be open to thought and discussion because completeness is, in fact, very relative and depends largely on the purpose of the speaker or writer as well as on the context, linguistic or situational.

Logical definitions of the sentence predominated in the preceding periods of the development of the syntactic theory. The concepts of structural grammar are based on grammatical and phonetic criteria. Its authors develop the principles suggested by L. Bloomfield —

¹ See: В. В. Виноградов. Грамматическое учение о слове. M., 1947. 170

the concept of endocentric and exocentric phrases as sentence elements and the immediate constituents analysis.

The principle of transformational grammar is that the whole grammar of a language constitutes a definition of the sentence.

The traditional definition is that a sentence is a group of words expressing a complete thought is to-day often criticised on the ground that a sentence is sometimes one word and that the thought is not always complete but largely depends on the meaning of preceding sentences.

Some recent writers have attempted to make "utterance" do the work of the classical term "sentence". But this does not seem fully justified because the two terms belong to different planes, one historical and the other linguistic.

The dissatisfaction with the term seems to result from the fact that accurate studies of syntax distinguishing what is grammatically self-contained in writing, and what are the corresponding structures in actual speech, have not yet been made. This deserves special systematic description.

Sentence-patterning in English has been described proceeding from different angles of view. Thus, for instance, the concept of the relational framework of language has led to the study of the inner syntactic relationships in the sentence which seems most promising in the investigation of the depth of syntactic perspective.

Structural (descriptive) linguistics endeavours to present the syntactic aspect of language in terms of a tabulated survey of sentence patterns and the rules of developing and extending these patterns. The notion of the structural pattern is worked out with relevance to a simple monopredicative sentence.

Most grammarians hold the view that language is a system of interdependent units in which the value of each unit results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others. Distinction is reasonably made between syntagmatic and paradigmatic or associative relations.

In actual speech syntagmatic relations will be observed between linguistic units of different levels, e. g. phonemes and morphemes within a word, between words in phrase structure and sentence, between phrases in sentences, or, say, between the parts of composite sentences, etc.

The question naturally arises about the relation of predicativity to the grammatical organisation of the sentence. Grammarians are not agreed at this point. The sentence is sometimes viewed only as a speech event with no relevance to its grammatical organisation and distribution at all. On the communicative level any part of the utterance may function as predicate. This view is most emphatically stated by E. Benveniste ¹.

A sentence may consist of one or more words.

Examples of one-word sentences are such exclamations as Thanks! Good!, Fire!, Rain!, Look!, Quick!, Steady!, Mother!.

Other, not necessarily exclamatory examples are: Yes. — No. Perhaps. — Certainly.— Incredible.— Tired?, Rain?, What? (= What did you say?)

¹ See: E. Benveniste. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Les niveaux de l'analyse linguistique. Paris, 1966, pp. 128-129.

One-word sentences are, as a rule, synsemantic. The necessary idea is made clear by a particular situation, a statement made or a question asked in mother sentence.

Cf. Why don't you dance? — Dance? I never do.

A simple sentence has its own system of formal means to express objective modal meanings and time relations concerning the reality or irreality of what is expressed in predication. The reflection of objective reality in a sentence is always clear of purpose.

Modality and syntactic time relevance cannot be thought of in isolation. The two categories are inseparable and present, in fact, a regular structural feature of any sentence.

Distinction must naturally be made between the morphological categories of time and "syntactic time relevance". The former are expressed by means of grammatical morphemes, the latter as a category of the sentence-level has its own formal means: special structural sentence-patterns and verb-forms made to serve syntactic purposes.

In different contexts of their use verb-forms can be functionally re-evaluated, e. g. present tense-forms can be used with past or future time relevance, as in: I'm not coming back to England. Bless you always Jon. (Galsworthy) She is playing Chopin tomorrow.

The category of "syntactic" mood can be expressed by: a) the structural sentence-pattern itself; b) the notional verb in a given structure of predication; c) verbless sentence-patterns; d) functional re-evaluation of the verb-forms of the Indicative and Imperative Mood; e) functional re-evaluation of some types of sub-clauses.

The theory of the functional sentence perspective worked out by the Prague School of linguistics has led in recent times to the concept of three stages of syntactic abstraction where the sentence is viewed as: 1) a single speech event; 2) a syntactic structure made up of the syntactic elements with no relevance to situational contexts and belonging only to grammar; 3) an utterance in its functional sentence perspective.

On the third level of analysis we examine the communicative sentence dynamics. The utterance is divided here into two sections, one of them, the "theme" contains what is the starting point of the statement, and the other, the "rheme" carries the new information for whose sake the sentence has been uttered or written.

In morphology we identify the grammatical meanings and forms proceeding from its system of formal oppositions around which the grammatical system of the language is to a large extent built up. And so it is with syntactic categories where the grammatical abstraction makes it possible to distinguish oppositional relations on different levels of linguistic analysis.

To begin with, the sentence itself as a grammatical category is primarily involved in the opposition:

the Primary Unit of Language

Nominative Unit

Word

the Primary Unit of Speech Communicative Unit Sentence

Oppositional relations on the sentence level are most obvious in the following:

1. Peter plays Does Peter play? Peter, play!

2. Peter plays Peter does not play.

3. Peter plays Peter will (must, may) play.

Correlation between Peter plays and Peter does not play gives the opposition affirmation:: negation.

The correlative group Peter plays — Peter must (may) play or Peter seems to play gives the opposition indicative:: potential.

As a matter of fact, each sentence is the crossing point of the given oppositions:

Peter plays narrative (neither interrogative sentence nor imperative) affirmative (not negative) sentence indicative (not suppositional)

In these terms, we distinguish the following types of sentences: declarative, interrogative, imperative.

1) Declarative sentences assert or deny something.

A wind had cleared the mist, the autumn leaves were rustling and the stars were shining.

2) Interrogative sentences ask a question. They may be subdivided into:

a) sentences requiring to express a certain thought, to confirm or negate what has been asked by the speaker.

"Do you like that?" — "No".

"Isn't it jolly?" she cried, and John answered: "Rather". (Galsworthy)

b) sentences requiring additional information about the thing asked. Such sentences show what information is required, and may refer to any part of the sentence, e. g.:

"Why did you go together?" pursued Soames. (Galsworthy)

"Look here" he said, "what's the meaning of it?" (Galsworthy)

3) Imperative sentences express requests which in different contexts range from categorical order to command and entreaties. The necessary meaning is generally signalled by the context and intonation:

Come up tomorrow morning!

Imperative Modality may also be expressed by:

1) Subjunctive forms in wish-sentences, calls, toasts, etc. Success attend you! May our country flourish and prosper!

2) Verb-forms of the Indicative Mood in transposition: "We¹ re going after buff in the morning", he told her. "I'm coming", she said.

"Mo, you're not."

"Oh, yes, I am. Mayn't I, Francis?"

"We'll put on another show for you tomorrow".Francis Macomber said. "You are not coming", Wilson said. (Hemingway) (You are not coming = Don't come = Don't you come)...Oh, the shame of this day! The shame of this day! You'll be comin' home with me now.

... We're not out of this place yet. He's not. You'll come home with me now. (Dreiser)

3) Nouns and noun-phrases, e. g.: Silence! Attention! Fire! (= Open fire!)

4) Modal phrases, e. g.:

He shall come with no delay.

5) Adverbs and adverbial phrases, as in: Forward! Forward!

It seems beyond question that a study of syntagmatic relations must be based on the valency analysis aimed at giving comprehensive rules for combining words into sentences. The identification of the necessary lexical or structural meaning of the word is often based on its corresponding distribution. Language patterns must be observed in their internal composition inasmuch as it correlates with different kinds of usage. In other words, a distinction should be made, between what might be called lexical collocation and what some linguists call, or used to call, grammatical collocation, for which another name is 'colligation'.

In grammatical collocation or colligation, which is always a matter of structure, only certain types of morphemes habitually find themselves in some environments and are definitely excluded from others; as, for instance, am is found in close association with I or he, she, it — with present tense ending with -s or -es (in the written medium) or the pronominal determiner that — with singular nouns, those — with plural nouns, and so on.

Grammatical collocation of this sort restricts the choice of words very rigorously. Lexical collocation restricts the choice in more or less the same way but not so rigidly, since it does allow transgression of the rule for various stylistic purposes. Contexts have a way of making a grammatical form convey different structural meanings including sometimes the exact opposite of what is ordinary intended.

In linguistic studies we generally distinguish: grammatical or word-changing, lexical, or derivational, and phonemic paradigms.

Thus, for instance, the paradigm in the declension of the noun друг in Russian will give a set of such word-forms as: друг, друга, другу, друга, другом, о друге.

The paradigm of the English noun girl is girl → girls, girl's, girls'.

A morphological paradigm is a set of word-forms of one lexeme: case — number — in nouns, tense — aspect — in verbs. The paradigm of the verb work is presented by the following word-forms: work — works, worked, will work, is working, was working, will be working, has worked, had worked, will have worked, has been working, had been working, will have been working.

From the kernel word love a number of derivative words can be generated by means of certain well known rules telling us what morphemes must be added and to what kernel they must be added (V or N):

love (N) love (V)

lovely (A) lover (N)

loveliness (N) loving (A) lovingly (D)

loveless (A) lovable (A)

beloved (A)

Similarly:

live (V) live [laiv] (A)

liveable (A) lively (A)

liveliness (N)

liven (V)

The multiplicity of ways in which words may be combined in actual usage can reasonably be interpreted in terms of syntactic paradigms. One word-form can perform the function of different sentence-elements, and one sentence-element can be morphologically and lexically expressed by different linguistic signs.

Linguistically the meaning of a sentence-element is naturally to be understood through relations with the content of the other sentence-elements. As such it is always relative in its character and is not actualised in isolation.

Syntactic relations make up a cluster of oppositions in various items of syntactic hierarchy. And there seems to be a regular system behind them.

The study of syntax in these terms is most helpful and can cast much light on the nature and functioning of language.

As a matter of fact, the paradigmatic and syntagmatic concepts of language go as far back as N. V. Krushevsky's statements about the relational framework of language built up on similarity and differentiation of sentence elements.

This approach to the study of syntax becomes increasingly useful for insight into the structure and functioning of any language.

PROBLEMS OF SENTENCE-PARADIGM

Problems of syntactic paradigmatics figure quite prominently in linguistic studies of recent years. Accurate studies of sentence paradigms in the theory of English structure have not yet been made and much remains to be done before complete data in this part of English syntax are available.

A major linguistic interest is presented by the treatment of the problem in modern Russian Syntax².

By "sentence-paradigm" we mean the system of its forms.

Thus, for instance, the paradigm of a simple kernel sentence may be identified in terms of modal and time relations as expressed by its major patterns.

D. Worth makes distinction between inflectional and derivational syntactic paradigms, which is not devoid of logical foundations.

The simplest case of an inflectional paradigm may be illustrated by variations of one category in a given pattern, e. g. the category of number

and person in the subject and in the object; the category of mood, tense, number, person in the predicate, and sometimes in both subject and predicate. By way of illustration:

The distribution of these forms is known to be governed by a type of correlation with the subject called concord. Concord may be defined as the complementary distribution of linguistic forms having the same syntactic function in systematic correlation with other formally distinct forms with which they are syntactically linked.

Concord is certainly not so prominent in the structure of English as it is in some other languages, but it occasionally becomes important in dealing with persons of verbs. Thus, for instance, the third-singular person is used whenever a simple verb in the head-verb is a predicate whose subject is one of the following:

(1) a noun for which he, she, or it may be substituted;

(2) one of the pronouns he, she or it;

(3) the demonstrative pronouns: this or that;

(4) a structure of modification of which one of the above is head;

(5) any other part of speech beside a noun, or a structure of modification or complementation with such part of speech as head or verbal element, e. g.: Too much knowledge makes the head bold. Playing with fire is dangerous;

(6) one of certain special predication structures: the included clause and the infinitival clause, e. g.: What you say is true. To see is to believe;

(7) a structure of coordination in which the coordinator is or, nor, (n)either... (n)or, or not (only)... but (also) and in which the last coordinate element belongs to (1) — (6) above; also one of certain other special structures of coordination ¹.

On this level of analysis the starting point must naturally be the simplest two-member declarative sentence with the subject in the sin-

¹ See: W. N. Francis. The Structure of American English. New York, 1958. 176

gular and the predicate expressed by the verb-form of the Present Tense (Common Aspect), Indicative Mood, Active Voice.

Transformations of this kernel simple two-member declarative sentence may be paradigmatically represented as follows:

The child plays

The child does The child Does the Who Who does How the play does not child plays? not play? child play play? plays!

The given pattern may be transformed into: a) an attributive adjunct and b) a structure of secondary predication.

(a) the playing of the child the child's play

the play of the child The child plays the playing child

the child's playing

(b) for the child to play the child playing with the child playing

The sentence is a complex syntactic unit and as such it can enter a number of syntactic paradigms build up on similarity and differentiation of the sentences. All the syntactic paradigms of the sentence make up its "hyperparadigm".¹

Problems of sentence-patterning have received increasing attention in syntactic studies of recent years.

Important treatments have been made with a view to describe the syntactic system of a language as a closed inventory of the basic structural sentence-patterns and give a survey of the regularities in their possible expansion and reduction.

With the diversity of view-points within descriptive linguistics it is not surprising that grammarians differ in their assumptions and methods of such analysis. For the most part there is a considerable variation in defining the principal types of sentences as finite in number.

In the words of H. Stageberg, for instance, there are basically 9 major types of sentences; J. Hook, E. Mathews in Modern American Grammar and Usage give basically only five major patterns which over ninety per cent of present-day sentences follow. The five patterns described in this grammar are determined only by the position of the major components of a sentence. If the position of one of major components is altered, the sentence follows a minor, rather than a major pattern.

The five major patterns are:

Major Pattern I: Subject and Verb

Women applauded.

Major Pattern II: Subject — Verb — Object

We ate hamburgers.

¹ See: D. Worth. The Role of Transformations in the Definition of Syntagmas in Russian and Other Slavic Languages. The Hague, 1963.

1 77

Major Pattern III: Subject —Verb — Predicate Nominative

Husbands are nice.

Major Pattern IV: Subject — Verb — Predicate Adjective

Helen is beautiful.

Major Pattern V: Expletive — Verb — Predicate Adjective — Subject There were traitors in their midst. It is easy to swim. It remained for me to concur. It's (or there's) no use crying over spilled milk.

All the above given structural patterns may naturally be expanded by adding to either the subject or the verb other words called 'modifiers':

Addition of one-word modifiers:

Several women applauded politely.

Addition of phrase modifiers:

The women standing in the aisles applauded with vigour.

Addition of dependent clauses in the complex sentence:

The women who were standing in the aisles applauded when the presiding officer asked for more chairs.

Duplication of the pattern — the compound sentence:

Women applauded and men grinned.

Duplication plus dependent clause — the compound-complex sentence:

When the presiding officer asked for more chairs many women in the aisles applauded and several men grinned sleepishly.

In Whitehall's Structural Essentials of English¹ the principal types of sentences are shown as based on a more limited number of types of word-groups referred to as sentence situations.

The simplest form of the sentence — that which consists simply of subject and of verb or verb-group predicate goes here by the name

Sentence Situation I:

He cried.

Boys yell.

What he had attempted had failed.

All the good men were fighting.

To sing such song as this could help.

Sentence Situation II (V — Complement):

The matter slipped his memory. It was raining cats and dogs.

Sentence Situation III — a sentence with two complements:

The reporter gave the lady a present.

Tom Sawyer painted the fence white.

We found the house broken down.

The captain had wanted his aide to examine the matter.

¹ See: H. Whitehall. Structural Essentials of English. New York, 1956.

In transformational grammar kernel sentences are also given with a different degree of generalisation: 7 types of kernel sentences in L. S. Harris' Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure and 3 types — in B. Hathaway's Transformational Syntax.

There are basically six major structural patterns well identified in terms of sentence elements, their function and position, in «Структурный синтаксис английского языка» edited by L. L. Iofik:

1. SP: The bird sings.

2. SPc Comp_s: He is a boy/young.

3. SPO₁: The hunter killed the bear.

4. SPO₂O₁ Albert gave him a book.

5. SPO₁Comp₀: He painted the door white.

6. There PS: There is a book on the table.

More extensive and accurate is the tabulated survey of different types of kernel sentences given by G. G. Pocheptsov¹.

Based on certain assumptions about the kinds of processes that exist in language and the manner in which they correlate this survey presents a major linguistic interest.

It should be clear, however that the description of English structures that has been and is being developed by different scholars in accordance with the new approaches and "dimensions" of language cannot be regarded as a closed fixed system. There is an enormous amount to be learned concerning the nature of language in general and the structure of English in particular.

That the basic patterns of English sentences fall into a limited number of types and can be classified according to the form of the predicate seems to have been first pointed out by С. Т. О n і о n s ² at the beginning of this century. In his tabulated survey he gives five basic patterns, each taking its characteristic form from the structure of the predicate:

Дата добавления: 2014-12-29