МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ТАМБОВСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ имени Г.Р. ДЕРЖАВИНА Л.А.ПАНАСЕНКО КРАТКИЙ КУРС ЛЕКЦИЙ ПО ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКОЙ ГРАММАТИКЕ АГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА. СИНТАКСИС Учебно-методическое пособие ТАМБОВ 2005 Панасенко Л.А. Краткий курс лекций по теоретической грамматике современного английского
языка. Синтаксис. Учебно-методическое пособие для студентов IV курса по специальности Зарубежная филология английский язык . Тамбов Изд-во ТГУ им. Г.Р. Державина, 2005 74 с. Настоящий курс лекций посвящен рассмотрению основных вопросов синтаксиса с точки зрения традиционных подходов и новой парадигмы лингвистического знания - когнитивного подхода к анализу грамматических явлений.
Цель настоящей методической разработки состоит в том, чтобы помочь студентам систематизировать теоретическую базу знаний по основным проблемам курса, а также познакомить студентов с современными исследованиями в области синтаксиса, проводимыми отечественными и зарубежными лингвистами в рамках когнитивного подхода. Пособие включает материал девяти лекций по темам курса, предусмотренным учебной программой. В качестве приложения в реферативной форме приводятся выдержки из наиболее известных работ когнитологов,
занимающихся разработкой вопросов синтаксиса в настоящее время, которые могут быть использованы студентами в качестве дополнительного материала при подготовке к семинарским занятиям. L E C T U R E 1. SYNTAX AND ITS MAIN UNITS. TRADIITIVE APPROACHES IN SYNTAX I. Syntax as part of grammar. The main units of syntax. II. Traditional and cognitive understanding of syntax.
III. The basic principles and arguments of the cognitive linguistics. IV. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning. I. Syntax as part of grammar. The main units of syntax. Syntax as part of grammar analyses the rules of combining words into phrases, sentences and supra-sentential constructions or texts. The rules of combinability of linguistic units are connected with the most general and abstract parts
of content of the elements of language. These parts of content together with the formal means of their expression are treated as grammatical categories . In syntax, they are, for instance, the categories of communicative purpose or emphasis, which are actualized by means of word-order. Thus, word-order direct or indirect , viewed as a grammatical form, expresses the difference between the central idea of the sentence and the marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive
modes of speech, e.g. In the center of the room stood the old man. The word arrangement in this sentence expresses a narrative description with the central informative element placed in the strongest position, i.e. at the end. Thus, grammatical elements of language present a unity of content and expression i.e. a unity of form and meaning . Accordingly, the purpose of Modern Grammar, and
Syntax in particular, is to disclose and formulate the rules of the correspondence between the plane of content and the plane of expression in the process of utterance-formation. The main units of syntax are phrases and sentences. The phrase is a combination of two or more notional words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word. The main difference between the phrase and the sentence is in their linguistic
function. The phrase is a nominative unit, the sentence is a predicative one. Nomination is naming things and their relations. A nominative unit simply names something known to everybody or a majority of native language speakers, recalling it from their memory, e.g. a book, a departure. A phrase represents an object of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a thing, an action, a quality or a whole situation, e.g. an interesting book, to start with a jerk, absolutely fantastic,
his unexpected departure. The sentence is the immediate unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a communicative purpose. The sentence, naming a certain situation, expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality through the grammatical categories of tense, person and mood. The category of tense is used to convey something new and define its place in reality as preceding,
or following the act of communication. The category of person shows, whether the situation involves the communicators or not. Through the category of mood the event is shown as real or unreal, desirable or obligatory. Thus, the sentence presents a unity in its nominative and predicative aspects, denoting a certain event in its reference to reality. The distinguishing features of the sentence are predication, modality and communicative meaningfulness. It is stated that the center of predication in a sentence
of verbal type is a finite verb, which expresses essential predicative meanings by its categorial forms categories of tense and mood . Some linguists though V Vinogradov, M.Y.Bloch insist that predication is effected not only by the forms of the finite verb, but also by all the other forms and elements of the sentence, which help establish the connection between the named objects and reality. They are such means as intonation, word order, different functional words.
Due to their nominative meaning, both the sentence and the phrase enter the system of language by their syntactic patterns. The traditional linguistics considers four main types of syntactic patterns predicative subject predicate , objective verb object , attributive attribute noun , adverbial verb adverb adjective adverbial modifier . II. Traditional and cognitive understanding of syntax. The traditional, or systemic approach in Grammar, centers around the description of structural properties
of linguistic units and their meanings, as they are represented in the system of language without considering the process of utterance-formation, i.e. it doesnt envisage the general cognitive and linguistic mechanisms which enable us to shape the conceptual content into a sentence and whats more important to structure the exact sentence we want, corresponding to our pragmatic intention for example, whats the difference between the following pairs of sentences, if any at all
Bill sent a walrus to Joyce. Bill sent Joyce a walrus Buzzing, the car went down the road. The car buzzed down the road. To find the answers seems possible within a cognitive approach, the approach which was started in the second half of the 20th century and since then has been greatly promoted by foreign linguists such as G.Lakoff, R.Jackendoff, R. Langacker, L.Talmy, J.R.
Taylor, A.Wierzbicka and others. Cognitive linguistics appeared within a framework of approaches to the analysis of language, which are the formal, the psychological, and the conceptual. The formal approach addresses the linguistic patterns, abstracted away from any associated meaning. Thus, this approach includes the study of morphological, syntactic, lexical structure. Traditional generative grammar has centered itself within this approach.
The psychological approach looks at language from the perspective of general cognitive systems, within this approach language is examined from the perspective of perception, memory, attention, reasoning. The main target of the conceptual approach is to consider the global system of schematic structures with which language organizes conceptual content that it expresses. Cognitive approach is concerned with the patterns in which and the processes by which conceptual content
is organized in language, or, in other words, how language structures conceptual content. Cognitive linguistics studies how language structures such basic conceptual categories as those of space and time, scenes and events, entities and properties, motion and location, force and causation. It considers the semantic structure of morphological and lexical forms as well as that of syntactic patterns. Cognitive linguistics considers language a cognitive system, which along with other cognitive
systems, such as perception, attention, reasoning, affect, memory, motor control comprises human cognition. In this respect language appears to have some structural properties common to other cognitive systems. The investigation of linguistic means in cognitive aspect, that is examining of meaning-form mappings картирование, отображение is based on the recent findings of psychology such as the prototypical principle of category structure, the principle of figure-ground segregation выделение фигуры и фона , windowing
of attention распределение внимания and some others. Lets consider each of them. III. The basic principles and arguments of the cognitive linguistics. The prototypical principle of category structure argues that any category possesses center-periphery pattern. The center comprises entities which maximally reveal categorial properties, while the periphery is represented by the entities which demonstrate categorial properties only to a certain degree.
The principle is used in the study of the syntactic categories syntactic constructions with P. Hopper and S. Thompson, A. Goldberg, J.R. Taylor parts of sentence - the object, the adverbial modifier - with N.N. Boldyrev in morphology - parts of speech with E.S. Kubryakova . The principles of figure-ground segregation, and windowing of attention are viewed as common to the cognitive system of attention and considered to be essential ones in examining meaning-
form mappings in syntax. Figure-ground segregation principle implies that our visual and auditory input is organized in terms of prominence of the different parts. The part of the whole which is perceived as more prominent is given the status of figure and the part which is less prominent is given the status of ground e.g when we listen to a piano concert we can easily make out the part played by the piano as more prominent than the accompaniment of the orchestra thus,
the piano part is figure and the orchestra accompaniment is ground . In the system of language the figure - ground principle is believed to work as follows the properties of the figure are those of concern, the ground functions is a reference entity and is used to characterize the properties of the figure figure-ground segregation explains, for instance, the principle of semantic asymmetry of syntactic structures we can say, for example,
My sister resembles Madonna , but Madonna resembles my sister seems hardly possible. In R.Langacker terminology the subject of the sentence performs the function of the syntactic figure, while the object is the syntactic ground, in other words, object is a conceptual anchor for the subject and specifies the latter. In the case Madonna resembles my sister the concrete content of the subject and object realized through the lexical semantics disagrees with the functions of subject and object
as syntactic figure and ground. The terms Figure and Ground are adopted by L.Talmy, R. Langacker for the investigation of conceptualization processes in human mind as they are reflected in syntactic structures different types of sentences . At the same time in cognitive linguistics are widely used terms Profile and Base R.Langacker, J.R.Taylor for explicating the same cognitive phenomena.
Figure-Ground segregation as well as Profiling rendering one aspect of the conceptual content more prominently reflect the essence of the mechanisms of conceptualization. Profiling, in fact, is structuring of any conceptual content by principle of Figure-Ground segregation. It is axiomatic in cognitive grammar that all linguistic expressions profile something or other, and thus determine the conceptualization of any entity or event.
A sentence type profiles a particular event type, a verb profiles a process, a preposition profiles a kind of relation. The principle of windowing of attention in the language is discovered in the fact that linguistic forms can differentially direct or withdraw attention from particular portions of a situation, conceptualized by the speaker into a particular utterance compare the active and passive constructions . According to cognitive linguistics the fundamental design feature of language is that
it has 2 subsystems, which are the grammatical and the lexical ones. The grammatical properties of language, and syntactical in particular, are examined by such linguists as L.Talmy, R.Langacker, A.Wierzbicka. All of them share the view that the grammatical means of language that is morphology and syntax along with lexicon form a continuum of symbolic units and perform a concept structuring function in language. It means that when we use a particular construction we select a particular
image or profile to structure the conceived situation for communicative purposes. Imagery or profiling can be examined in the following sentences, while considering the semantic contrast a Bill sent a walrus to Joyce. b Bill sent Joyce a walrus R.Langacker example . The sentences differ in meaning because they employ subtly different images of the same situation. The semantic contrast is in the prominence of certain parts of this scene.
In a sent. the preposition to brings into focus the path followed by the walrus, and thereby rendering this aspect of the situation as more prominent. In b sent. the juxtaposition of two nouns Joyce and walrus after the verb renders the idea of possessivity. The difference in imagery determines the use of to and the double -object construction for certain types of situations. Consider the following examples a
I sent a walrus to Antarctica sounds OK b I sent the zoo a walrus sounds OK but c I sent Antarctica a walrus is doubtful. Thus, the first argument of cognitive approach, concerning syntax, sounds as follows grammatical constructions, according to R. Langacker , possess schematic characteristics, i. e. provide alternative imagery conceptualizations for the same event or situation. In L.Talmys conception the idea of imagery function of grammatical
constructions was formulated as a principle of conceptual alternativity. It means that the variety of grammatical forms provide a choice among alternative conceptualizations, from which a speaker selects one or another according to her communicative purposes. The second argument says, that the set of grammatical notions constitutes the fundamental concept structuring system of language. The grammatical forms of a sentence, and its syntactic pattern particularly, determine
the structure of the conceptual material represented in the sentence, while the lexical elements specify its content. It is due to this argument that it becomes possible to distinguish different formats of representing knowledge in syntactic forms configurational format, where linguistic knowledge prevails - the knowledge of syntactic configurations or schemas, such as transitive and intransitive constructions actualizational format, where extra-linguistic knowledge prevails - the knowledge of event types event
concepts as mapped onto the basic syntactic configurations- transitive and intransitive constructions format of mixed type, where linguistic knowledge and extra-linguistic knowledge are equally represented. For details see Болдырев Н.Н Фурс Л.А. Репрезентация языковых и неязыковых знаний синтаксическими средствами Филологические науки. 3, 2004, стр. 67-74 Фурс Л.А. Форматы представления знаний в синтаксисе Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики.
Вып.1 2004, стр. 166-181. To illustrate the basic function of grammatical forms to determine the structure of the conceptual material represented in the sentence lets consider the following sentences He panted up to the school. The car rattled down the road. He dozed into a new cut. The syntactic construction, containing a prepositional word-group, structures the conceived event as Motion, while the lexical semantics of the verbs to pant , to rattle , to doze
evokes the Processual aspect of the event in the listeners mind. Within a cognitive approach the sentence as a unit of syntax is viewed in terms of schematization or profiling or imagery. It means, as it has been already discussed, that every grammatical construction possesses schematic characteristics, provides some particular imagery or conceptualization for the same event. In this aspect the study of a transitive construction is very illustrative, performed by such
linguists as G.Lakoff, G. Taylor, A. Wierzbicka. The prototypical transitive construction is built up according to a certain syntactic pattern, which is the subject the verb-predicate the direct object. Initially it encodes transitive events events which involve two participants, an agent and a patient, where an agent consciously acts in such a way as to cause a change in state of a patient, and its concept- structuring pattern or scheme is agent-action-patient.
When the speaker uses the transitive construction for naming a particular event or situation he profiles it as a transitive event, that is he conceptualizes this particular event in terms of a agent-action-patient schema, even if this particular event is not inherently transitive. Lets compare pairs of sentences which describe the same situation a He swam across the Channel b He swam the Channel J.
R. Taylors examples . Sentence a denotes the location of swimming. Sentence b presents the event as a transitive one and suggests its reading conceptualization as follows the Channel is a challenge to the swimmers power. In this respect the sentence He swam our new swimming pool. seems odd. A. Wierzbicka analyses the use of two- objects- constructions, one object is a patient, the other is an addressee, e.g.
John offered Mary a rose. Such like constructions are used to encode events, where the patient is involved into the action but doesnt undergo any structural changes, for example destruction. It means that this type of semantic-syntactic constructions profiles the event in terms of an agent-action-addressee-patient scheme, where the action is understood as giving to , and in this aspect it becomes clear, why the sentence Kill me a spider. is impossible .
Thus, if the traditional linguistics concentrates on the study of the formal, structural and semantic properties of the syntax units, in the cognitive linguistics the sentence, its syntactic structure or pattern, is understood in terms of conceptualization, that is how the sentence, as a particular syntactic model, performs the concept-structuring function. IV. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning. The sentence and the phrase as particular syntactic patterns
are traditionally viewed as standing to one another in two types of relations syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a sequence, e.g. The book was sold at a great reduction in price. In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words was sold , at a reduction in price , at a great reduction etc. Paradigmatic relations exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur.
Paradigmatics finds its expression in a system of oppositions, for example sentences of various functional destination can be viewed as opposed to each other question as opposed to statement, negation as opposed to affirmation about syntactic oppositions read in the book by M.Y. Bloch p.286 . Syntactic oppositions are realized by correlated sentence patterns, the relations between which can be described as transformations.
Some of the patterns are base patterns, others are their transformations, for example, a question can be described as produced from a statement, e.g. He is interested in sports. Is he interested in sports? A negation produced from an affirmation, e.g. He is interested in sports. He is not interested in sports. Paradigmatics can be understood as syntactic derivation of more complex pattern-constructions out of
basic or kernel pattern-constructions. There are two types of derivational relations in the paradigmatic system 1 the constructional relations 2 the predicative relations. The constructional derivation effects the formation of more complex clausal structures out of simpler ones. Kernel sentences can undergo changes into clauses the process of clausalization and phrases the process of phrasalization . For example, the two kernel sentences
They departed from the city and They started a new life produce the following constructions, which demonstrate clausalization 1 As they departed from the city, they started a new life 2 If they depart from the city they shall start a new life 3 They departed from the city, and they started a new life 4 They departed from the city, but they did not start a new life.
These kernel sentences also produce constructions, which demonstrate phrasalization 1 On their departure from the city a case of complete nominalization they started a new life 2 They departed from the city to start a new life a case of partial nominalization 3 They departed from the city starting a new life a case of partial nominalization 4 Having departed from the city, they started a new life participal construction of adverbial status .
The predicative derivation realizes the formation of predicatively different units, and is responsible for the expression of the predicative semantics of the sentence. So, kernel sentences undergo structural modification, which expresses the predicative functions of the sentence, e.g. He has done the job He has not done the job. In this respect the kernel sentence is the simplest construction both in the notional and functional
sense, that is it is an elementary sentence which is non-interrogative, non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal. Thus, the main units of syntax, phrases and sentences, enter the system of language by their syntactic patterns. Syntactic patterns are explicated in syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning. L E C T U R E 2. SYNTAX OF THE PHRASE I. Traditional conceptions of phrases in home linguistics and abroad. II. Types of syntactic relations in phrases.
Types of phrases. III. Phrase theory in cognitive linguistics J.R. Taylors conception . I. Traditional conceptions of phrases in home linguistics and abroad. Investigations of phrases have a long history. It dates back as early as the 18th century and it has been first mentioned in practical Grammar books. The first really scientific conception of phrases appeared in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.
The phrase theory has been started by home linguists, such as Ph. F. Fortunatov, A.A.Shakhmatov, A.M. Peshkovskiy. They termed phrase as any syntactically arranged group of words. This conception tested the course of time and now it is shared by the majority of linguists. But it is not the only one adopted in home linguistics.
In the 50th V.V.Vinogradov introduced another conception of phrase. He termed phrase as a group of notional words which are syntactically unequal that is one dominates the other, e.g. to make notes, an interesting book. Coordinated words, e.g. run and jump, sister and brother, were considered as a sequence of separate words in speech. This point of view was widely spread and acknowledged in the middle of the 20th century.
Nowadays the majority of linguists accept the first broad interpretation of phrase as any syntactically arranged group of notional words. M.Y. Bloch suggested that one should distinguish between combinations of notional words alone notional phrases , those of a notional and a functional word formative phrases , and combinations of functional words alone functional phrases 1 combinations of notional words, such as, a sudden arrival, extremely difficult, have a clearly pronounced nominative destination and denote
a complex phenomena 2 combinations of a notional word with a functional word, such as, can swim, of my sister, are equivalent to separate words by their nominative function. Functionally they may be compared to separate notional words used in various marked grammatical forms of my sister - my sisters 3 combinations of functional words, such as, as far as, such as, from behind, are equivalent to separate functional words and are used as connectors and specifiers of notional elements
of various status. Theoretical investigation of phrase in foreign linguistics was started much later, in the 30th of the 20th century. It was greatly promoted by L. Bloomfield. He termed phrase in the broad sense of the word, i.e. as any syntactically organized group of words. According to this conception all phrases of any language fall into 2 main groups 1 endocentric исходящий изнутри, центробежный 2 exocentric исходящий с поверхности внутрь, центростремительный .
The first group includes phrases any element of which can be used separately instead of the whole phrase, e.g. daughter and son. If in the sentence I will never forget my daughter and son once said it. we omit and son it would be grammatically correct. The phrases no element of which can substitute the whole group in the sentence L.Bloomfield referred to the second group, e.g. to write a book. We can not use any element of the phrase separately in a sentence instead of the whole phrase.
L.Bloomfieds theory of phrase was developed by his followers. Thus, one of them Ch. Hocket suggested a more detailed structural description of endocentric-exocentric phrases taking into consideration the position of the head word for details see Иванова И.П Бурлакова В.В Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка 1981 One more specification of foreign conceptions concerned the type of connection of phrase-elements.
It was suggested that all phrases in all languages should be first divided into phrases with hypotaxis subordination and those with parataxis coordination . The following subdivision repeats L.Bloomfields classification of phrases into endocentric and exocentric. One of the serious drawbacks of such like classification is that it lacks uniformity of principles of classification. Every other stage of classification is based upon another principle either syntactical
or structural. II. Types of syntactic relation in phrases. Types of phrases. Traditionally coordination and subordination are viewed upon as the basic types of syntactic relations. Coordination is the connection of equal and relatively independent parts, words, sentences, or sentence parts. It can be realized with or without conjunctions, i.e. syndetically and asyndetically respectively, e.g. 1 desks and chairs syn ,
2 cars ,buses, lorries asyn , 3 The water was warm and the sun was shining syn . This is a traditional view point on this type of syntactic relation, yet it is not shared by all linguists here and abroad. As for subordination it was defined by all linguists as syntactically unequal connection of parts, words, sentences, sentence parts. M.Y. Bloch terms syntactically equal connection of words as equipotent равнопотенциальный type of syntactical relation and syntactically unequal connection as
a dominational type of syntactical relation. Dominational or subordinational connection, as different from equipotent connection is effected in such a way that one element of the dominational or subordinational phrase is principal dominating and the other is subordinate dominated . The principal element is also called kernel or head word , the subordinate element - the adjunct or expansion . Subordination or domination can be of two main types bilateral or two-way or reciprocal
- двусторонняя или взаимная and monolateral or one-way - односторонняя . Two-way subordination is realized in predicative connection of words, uniting the subject and the predicate. The reciprocal nature of this connection is consists in the fact that the subject dominates the predicate, determining the person of predication, while the predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of predication, ascribing to the person of predication some action, or state, or quality cр отношение
интердепенденции взаимообусловленности у Л.Ельмслева . Compare the following sentences 1 The man ran up to the house action 2 The man smokes quality 3 The cup has been broken by the child action 4 The cups break easily quality - the use of the decausative construction 5 The car rattled down the road action process One-way subordination is realized in the attributive, objective
and adverbial connections. Objective connection reflects the relation of the object to the process, and subdivided into non-prepositional actualized by word-order and prepositional, e.g. 1 He regretted the event 2 I forget about the event. From the semantico-syntactic point of view objective connections are classed as direct and indirect or oblique . Direct object constructions reflect immediate transition of the action to the object.
Indirect oblique object constructions reflect the indirect relation of the object to the process, e.g. 1 Will you give me the book direct object ? 2 He ran up to the house. Attributive connection unites a substance with its attribute expressed by an adjective or a noun, e.g. a nice picture, a woman of means, a man of his word. Adverbial connection can be of two types primary and secondary.
Primary connection is established between the verb and its adverbial modifiers, e.g. to come late to do smth. with enthusiasm. Secondary adverbial connection is established between the non-verbal head word expressing a quality and its adverbial modifiers, e.g. no longer attractive head word , appallingly alike head word . Subordination is expressed by means of agreement - e.g. these books - when the subject agrees with the head word grammatically in the categories of number, person government - prepositional
or non-prepositional - e.g. follow him, listen to him - when the head word determines the grammatical form of the adjunct adjoining - prepositional or non-prepositional - e.g. come up to the point, very nice - when words are connected by their meaning, word order and intonation enclosure - e.g. at a great reduction, must have been already done - is realized by means of functional words, which together with the head word make up a framing construction. To sum it up, classification of types of phrases can be
based upon various principles - L.Bloomfield divides all phrases into endocentric any element of which can substitute for the whole phrase in its function and exocentric neither element of which can substitute for the whole group in its function in a major group - M.Y. Bloch distinguishes between notional phrases, formative phrases, functional phrases - traditional classification is based upon the types of syntactic relations between the phrase components, distinguishing
the coordinate and subordinate phrases. Coordinate phrases are divided according to a their structure simple or complex b their manner of connection syndetic or asyndetic . Subordinated phrases are divided according to a their structure simple or complex b types of subordinate relations predicative, attributive, objective, adverbial phrases c the position of the adjunct in the phrases before the kernel prepositional phrases or after the kernel postpositional phrases, e.g. a woman
of character d manner of subordination phrases with agreement, government or adjoining, enclosure e morphological nature of the kernel - noun, verbal, adjectival and adverbial phrases. IV. Phrase theory in cognitive linguistics J.R. Taylors conception . Classifications of types of phrases introduced within traditional structural approaches are primarily based on the study of their formal structural properties.
The investigation of phrases within a cognitive approach presupposes that the analysis of syntactic units should be performed in terms of conceptual integration. The syntagmatic relations in this case are viewed in terms of mechanisms which allow the combination of units with each other. Thus, J.R. Taylor in his book Cognitive Grammar introduces generalized schemas which reflect the mechanisms of conceptual combination
the mechanisms that govern the production of syntactic units and groups phrases of different types as mapped onto these schemas. J.R. Taylor terms these schemas constructional schemas. Constructional schemas belong to the conceptual level, they show what different types of phrases have in common at the semantic level. For example, the prepositional phrase with the structure Prep Noun phrase - on the table, on the mat, under the bed, etc. and the verb phrase with the structure
V Noun phrase - leave the office, drive the car appear to map onto one of the four types of constructional schemas, proposed by J.R. Taylor the head-complement schema, as these two types of phrases are headed by the relational u nit preposition and verb - the head of the phrase, which is elaborated by a nominal part of the phrase - the complement of the phrase. According to the mechanisms of combining simpler units into more complex structures there are 4 types
of constructional schemas schemas with head-complement relation, schemas with head-modifier relation, schemas of appositional relation, schemas with parataxis. While investigating the mechanisms of conceptual combination J.R. Taylor uses notions profile and base - the basic notions in Cognitive Grammar analysis of meaning. The profile and base constitute the concept.
The semantics of any linguistic expression resides on the combination of profile and base compare Figure and Ground, cognitive anchoring - terms adopted by L. Talmy for analysis of the conceptual level of the sentence, mechanisms of sentence production, and types of sentences for details see Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. 2000 . The concept consists in knowledge of the profile against the base the profile picks out one
aspect of the base and renders it particularly prominent. Consider the concept father. The word father profiles an adult male human and invokes, as its base, the notion of relation between a profiled individual and his offspring. The notions of profile and base are essential for the constructional schemas. Head-complement schemas include the head of the expression and the complement of the expression, e.
g. on the table. The preposition on designates the spatial relation, that one of support and contact, and determines the profile of the complex concept on the table, it means that the semantics of the expression is relational in character. Both on and on the table designate the same relation , but with different degree of specificity. On is the head, it needs specification, which is achieved in the on the table the table is the complement, it elaborates an entity already present in the semantic structure
of the head. The head is conceptually more dependent needs specification , the complement is more autonomous. Head-modifier schemas include the head of the expression and the modifier of the expression, e.g. the book on the table. The expression profiles a thing, the book, which is determined by the profile the semantics of the book. The book is the head of the phrase , and on the table is a modifier. The modifier provides additional conceptual content to the head.
The head in this case is conceptually more autonomous, the modifier is more dependent. Appositional schemas include components which designate one and the same entity, but does it in different ways. They combine to form a more elaborate conception of the entity, e.g. my neighbour, the butcher. In this case one and the same person is characterized in terms of a relation to the speaker as my neighbour and in terms of his profession as the butcher . In this kind of schemas each component profiles one
and the same entity. It is as if it has two heads, each component contributes its profile to the phrase. Parataxis schemas can be viewed in linguistic expressions phrases or sentences where the components occur one after another, without conceptual integration, e.g. the sun, the sea, the water I came, I saw, I conquered. The relations between the components are not overtly marked and have to be inferred by the hearer. To sum it all up, within a cognitive approach different kind of phrases,
as well as the syntagmatic relations which they reveal, are studied in accord with the mechanisms of conceptual integration, i.e. mechanisms of combining words into phrases. J. R. Taylor proposes four such like mechanisms and constructional schemas which correspond them -complementation - the mechanism, where one component conceptually specifies the other component elaborating an entity already present in the semantic structure of the latter head-complement schema this type of conceptual
integration can be observed, for example, in the traditional analysis of the obligatory valency of the verb subject and direct object, e.g. I left the office - modification - the mechanism, where one component provides some additional conceptual content to the other component head-modifier schema compare the optional valency of the verb adverbial modifiers - apposition - the mechanism, where both the components elaborate one and the same entity but profile its different aspects appositional schema - parataxis
- the mechanism, where the relations between the components are not overtly marked by the speaker parataxis schema . For details see Taylor J.R. Cognitive Grammar. 2002 Further Readings on English Syntax this book, pp.53-56 . It is necessary to mention that the discussed mechanisms of conceptual integration reveal the essence of syntagmatic relations in general, as the basis of speech and thinking processes, and can be successfully
applied to the study of sentence types simple sentences, composite sentences and semi-composite sentences as an intermediary sentence type within a cognitive approach. L E C T U R E 3. THE SIMPLE SENTENCE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION I. The simple sentence as a monopredicative unit. II. Constituent structure of the simple sentence sentence parsing and the
IC-model analysis the model of immediate constituents . III. Paradigmatics of the simple sentence. I. The simple sentence as a monopredicative unit. The sentence as a main syntactic unit performs the function of predication. The basic predicative meanings are expressed by the finite verb which is connected with the subject of the sentence. This predicative connection is referred to as the predicative line of the sentence.
Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several predicative lines, respectively sentences can be monopredicative and polypredicative . Under this distinction the simple sentence is a sentence in which only one predicative line is expressed, e.g. We have much in common. It is raining. In respect of predication a proper simple sentence should be distinguished from a semi-composite sentence traditional term or complementational sentence
J.R. Taylors term and clause-conflational sentence L.Talmys term , conflation - соединение, объединение . Semi-composite sentence can include, for example, homogeneous sentence-parts either subjects or predicates, which represent polypredicative structures, e.g. 1. My brother and I were absolutely happy that time. 2.
The cousin greeted me and offered a cup of tea. It is quite evident that the sentences express two different predicative lines in the first one the two subjects form separate predicative connections and in the second one the two predicates are separately connected with the subject. Semi-composite sentences, as well as complementational sentences, can also include a clause which functions as the subject or the object of the verb, e.g. 3. I saw them break into the house.
4. To finish it in time was impossible. Clause-conflational sentences, as termed by L.Talmy, are syntactic units which are based on clause fusion. They represent conceptual complex and therefore possess polypredicative structures, though on the formal syntactic level appear as simple sentences. Such like structures are probably based on a higher degree of conceptual integration between parts of an event complex, as compared to semi-composite or complementational
sentences for details also see Taylor J.R. Cognitive Grammar. 2002 Further Readings on English Syntax this book, pp. 57-60 , e.g. 5. The leaves withered away. 6. He whistled his way out of the restaurant. 7. These cars are expensive to repair. Representation of polypredication is conditioned by interaction of lexical semantics of sentence elements and a particular type of syntactic construction.
Thus, we may state, that a proper simple sentence, or a single-clause sentence, to put it more exactly, is a monopredicative unit, as distinguished from composite and semi-composite sentences complementational and clause-conflational sentneces in terms of cognitive approach . II. Constituent structure of the simple sentence sentence parsing and the IC-model analysis model of immediate constituents .
Traditionally the investigation of structure of the simple sentence and its constituents is performed in terms of sentence-parsing. Sentence-parsing scheme presupposes that a sentence is organized as a system of function-expressing positions. The content of the functions reflects a situational event. The function-expressing positions are viewed as parts of the simple sentence, which are subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure вводная часть , addressing enclosure and interjectional
enclosure. The parts are arranged in a hierarchy, all of them perform some modifying role. Thus, the subject is a person-modifier of the predicate the predicate, or rather the predicative part of the sent. is a process- modifier of the subject the object is a substance-modifier of the predicate actional or non- actional processual or statal - e.g. Rose was behind panting her gratitude the adverbial is a quality-modifier of the predicate or rather
that of the processual part the attribute is a quality-modifier of a substantive part the parenthetical enclosure is a speaker-bound modifier of any sentence-part the addressing enclosure address is a substantive modifier of the destination of the sentence the interjectional enclosure is a speaker-bound emotional modifier of the sentence. Analyzing the sentence-constituents in terms of syntagmatic connection we may distinguish two types of functional positions obligatory and optional.
The obligatory positions make up a syntactic unit as such. As for the optional positions they are not necessary represented in the sentence. The pattern of obligatory syntactic positions is determined by the valency of the verb-predicate. In the sentence The small boy looked at him with surprise. This pattern will be expressed by the string The boy looked at him .
The attribute small and the adverbial with surprise are the optional parts of the sentence. The sentence all the positions of which are obligatory is called an elementary sentence or unexpended sentence , and it may include not only the principal parts of the sentence the subject or the predicate but also secondary parts, the object, for example. The sentence which includes not only the obligatory parts but also some optional parts supplementive
modifiers, such as an attribute or adverbial modifier is called the expanded simple sentence. Thus, the sentence-parsing scheme exposes the subordination ranks of the parts of the sentence, but it fails to present their genuine linear order in speech. This weak point of the sentence-parsing scheme is overcome in another scheme of analysis called the model of immediate constituents IC-model . The IC-model consists in dividing the whole sentence into 2
groups that of the subject and that of the predicate, which are further divided according to the successive subordinative order of the sub-groups constituents. For example, the sentence The small boy looked at him with surprise 1. NP-subj. VP-pred. 2. Det. NP VP ADV 3. A N V NP obj. 4. Prp. Pron. on the upper level of analysis is looked upon as a whole 1. on the next level it is divided
into the subject noun-phrase NP-subj. and the predicate verb-phrase VP-pred. 2. on the next level the subject noun-phrase is divided into the determiner Det. and the rest of the phrase the predicate verb-phrase is divided into the adverbial ADV and the rest of the phrase 3. on the next level the noun-phrase is divided into its adjective constituent A and the noun constituent N the verb-phrase is divided into its verb constituent
V and object pronoun-phrase NP-obj 4. the latter is finally divided into the preposition constituent Prp and pronoun constituent Pron . The IC-analysis continues until the word-level of the sentence is reached. The IC- representation of the sentence exposes both the subordination ranks of the sentence-parts and their linear order in speech. III. Paradigmatics of the simple sentence. Paradigmatics of the simple sentence is closely connected with the idea of the kernel sentence and
sentence-derivation, which was introduced by N.Chomsky. He believed that all sentences generated in speech that is surface structures are derived from or can be reduced to some limited number of basic syntactic structures which he called kernel . The sentence He did the job carefully and thoroughly can be reduced to the kernel sentence He did the job . The sentence I saw him come is derived from two kernel sentences
I saw him and He came . The derivation of sentences out of kernel ones can be analyzed as a process falling into sets of transformational steps 1. morphological arrangement of the sentence, i.e. morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant categories, such as the predicate categories of the verb tense, aspect, voice, mood, e.g. He writes. He will be writing would write has written 2. functional expansion includes various uses of functional words, e.g. He regretted the trip.
He seemed to regret the trip 3. substitution , e.g. The children ran out of the house. They ran out of the house. I want a different book, please. I want a different one, please 4. deletion - elimination of some elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions, e.g. Would you like to go out To go out? 5. positional arrangement , e.g.
A loud bang came from there. From there came a loud bang 6. intonational arrangement , e.g. They should do it on their own. They? Should do it on their own? Thus, the simple sentence is a monopredicative unit. The grammatical structure of a simple sentence is mainly determined by its syntactic pattern which presents a system of function-expressing positions, defined by the syntactic valency of the verb predicate.
L E C T U R E 4. THE SIMPLE SENTENCE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS I. The verbocentric conception of the sentence. II. The semantic interpretation of the sentence. III. The cognitive aspects of the simple sentence. I The verbocentric conception of the sentence. The verbocentric conception of the sentence is based on the alternative interpretation of the syntactic
structure of the sentence, its functional or syntactic positions. Unlike the traditional grammar, which says that there are two principal parts in the sentence -the subject and the predicate, the verbocentric conception or verb-centered conception argues that the main part of the sentence is the verb. This conception has been worked out by L.Tesniere. According to this theory the verb determines the constituent structure of the whole sentence.
L.Tesniere pictured the sentence as a small drama , centered around an action, denoted by the verb-predicate and its participants which he termed actants the subject and the object of the sentence and circonstants the time, the place, the quality of the action . In other words, the verb opens up some syntactic positions for other parts of the sentence. This combining power of the verb or its combinability
L. Tesniere called the valency of the verb. Thus, in the sentence We started our journey at the dawn the verb predicate start denotes an action, while the other parts denote its participants We - the subject or the doer of the action, journey its object. So there are two actants of the verb. Theres also one circonstant at the dawn , which denotes the time of the action. Thus, the syntactic structure of the sentence according to
L.Tesniere is conditioned by the syntactic valency of the verb predicate. The syntactic valency of the verb can be of two cardinal types obligatory and optional. The obligatory valency is necessary realized in the sentence, otherwise the sentence is grammatically incomplete. Obligatory valency mostly refers to the actants -the subject and the object, there are cases, however, when the adverbial can be also viewed as an obligatory position e.g.
The summer lasts into the early September. The optional valency is not significant for the competence of the sentence. It may or may not be realized depending on the needs of communication . The optional valency, as a rule, is the adverbial valency of the verb. II. The semantic interpretation of the sentence. Its important to point out that all verb predicates are not identical, as there are different types of verbs, denoting them.
We can distinguish between transitive to raise and intransitive to rise verbs, between verbs, denoting action to make , state to be , or relation to have, to belong , between causative to cause, to force, to order and noncausative to look verbs. Different types of verbs open different positions for actants or, in other words, different types of verbs have different valency. The semantic meaning of the verb determines its ability or inability to combine with different types
of actants. This can be described from the point of view of semantic interpretation of the sentence. The semantic interpretation of the sentence and its structure is now commonly given in terms of semantic cases or semantic functions of actants. This type of semantic description, called case grammar падежная грамматика role grammar - ролевая грамматика has been first employed by Ch. Fillmore in his book The case for case Дело о падеже .
According to his viewpoint the semantic case is the type of semantic relations, occurring between the verb predicate and its actants Agentive, Dative, Instrumental, Factitive фактитив , Locative местный падеж , Objective объектный, косвенный падеж , etc. Agentive is the case of the typically animate instigator of the action identified by the verb, e.g. He broke the window. The window was broken by him.
Instrumental is the case of the inanimate force or object causally involved in the action or state identified by the verb, e.g. The hammer broke the widow. He broke the window with the hammer. Dative is the case of the animate being affected by the state or action identified by the verb or nominative part of the predicative, e.g. He believed that he was right. We encouraged him to go there.
The failure was obvious to him. Factitive is the case of the object or result from the action or state identified by the verb, or understood as a part of the meaning of the verb, e.g. I waved a salute. I thought up a plan. I Xeroxed up three copies of his letter. Locative is the case which identifies the location or spatial orientation of the state or action identified by the verb or nominative part of the predicative, e.g.
Here is noisy. It is noisy here. Objective, the semantically most neutral case, the case of anything representable by a noun. It represents a thing which is affected by the action or state identified by the verb, e.g. I Xeroxed his letter. His letter was Xeroxed by me. Thus, the semantic interpretation of the sentence is given in terms of semantic cases or semantic functions of actants and is conditioned by the semantic meaning of the verb.
III. The cognitive aspects of the simple sentence. Traditional grammar holds that a simple sentence normally consists of 3 key elements a subject, a verb element or predicate and a complement an object or an adverbial . This standard pattern can be illustrated in the following examples 1. Susan resembles my sister. 2. Susan is peeling a banana.
3. Susan loves bananas. 4. The hammer breaks the glass. 5. Susan has a large library. 6. Susan received the present. 7. Susan swam the Channel. 8. The garden is swarming with bees. 9. There was a loud bang R.Langackers examples . Though all these examples contain the said elements, they are in fact rather divergent. The subjects refer to persons, things, places or they are empty
as there -subject in the last example . Persons, things and places are also eligible as complements. In one case sent.1 the subject and the object can be exchanged, while this is not possible with the other sentences, and the transformation into passive sentences is also restricted. Both traditional grammarians and modern linguistic schools have recognized these differences and have tried to cope with them by proposing different verb classes or case frames
Ch. Fillmore or explaining some of them in terms of transformations of other patterns N. Chomsky e.g. She swam the Channel. -derived from She swam across the Channel In cognitive linguistics the semantic diversity of subjects and objects is viewed within the main cognitive principles the prototypical principle of category structure, the principle of figure-ground segregation and windowing of attention .
According to the prototypical principle of category structure the categories are based on the principle of relative similarity but not absolute identity like it was in traditional grammar . Any category has the list of properties typical for its members. The more properties a category member realizes the more prototypical or typical for this category it is and vice versa. Real members of categories are evaluated as possessing this or that degree of prototypicalness
which depends on their closeness to the prototype. American linguists P. Hopper and S. Thompson suggested the notion of the prototypical transitive construction, associating the interpretation of the sentence with the idea of transitivity. The scientists suggested 10 semantic criteria, possession of which makes concrete syntactic construction sentence perfectly transitive, i.e. prototypical from the point of transitivity.
The less characteristic features it realizes the less transitive and so the less prototypical it is. Criteria Degree of prototypicalness High Low 1. Number of participants of 2 or more 1 participant the event, presence of subject including and object subject and object e.g. He did the job. e.g. She is kind. 2. Kinesis action non-action actional characteristics 3-4. Aspect result no result вид instantaneous action multiple action 5.Affirmativeness affirm. negat.
Negativeness e.g. He is not able to do the job. 6. Mode reality irreality модальность e.g. He would like to do the job. 7.Volitionality волитивность Intentionality e.g. She is kind. интенциональность 8.Degree of agency high low of subject 9.Degree of affectedness total affectedness no affectedness of object e.g. He looked at her. 10. Degree of high individualization e.g.
He likes looking at of object her. Taking into consideration these criteria we can judge that constructions sentences , describing the event where the concrete subject semantically characterized as agency commits the concrete intentional action semantically described as patience , resulting in modification of the object, including its creation or destruction, can be characterized as prototypical from the point of transitivity. So, we can see that within the cognitive approach the transitive syntactic constructions
are believed to make up a prototypical category. J. R. Taylor examines the semantic potential of syntactic constructions compare He swam across the Channel. He swam the Channel. In the second sentence the path is incorporated into the verb thus, a motion event is constructed as a transitive event J.R. Taylor views this semantic divergence as categorial extension motivated by metaphor.
R. Dirven and M.A.K. Halliday, the representatives of the functional approach in linguistics, deal with sentences like The fifth day saw our departure. in terms of grammatical metaphor. J. R. Taylor argues that metaphorical extension of the said category presupposes that the agent- action- patient schema characteristics of transitive events is projected onto states of affairs which are not inherently transitive. Non-prototypical transitive sentences are interpreted in terms of an agent acting
as to cause a change of state in a patient e.g. the sentence Guns kill people suggests such like interpretation guns are responsible agents for what is happening. e.g. The book sold a million copies Here the subject book , which looks more like a patient than an agent, receives certain aspects of agency. And in this respect the sentence is interpreted as follows the seller does not have complete control over the act of selling, the successful sale depends on the
attributes of the thing that is sold. Thus, J.R. Taylor examines the semantic basis of the prototypical category of transitive constructions and states that transitivity is a property of the sentence, not lexical items. The prototypical transitive sentence is made up by a prototypical subject, which is an agent, and by a prototypical object, which is a patient. The problem which is to be solved here is to disclose the principles according to which we give a particular
constituent of the event the status of the syntactic subject or that of the syntactic complement including the object and the adverbial . The plausible solution of the problem was suggested by R.Langacker. R.Langacker argues that a unified explanation of the syntactic diversity is possible if the subject-verb-complement pattern is viewed in terms of schematization and understood as a reflection of the general cognitive principles of figure ground segregation, role archetypes and windowing of attention.
According to the figure ground principle the subject in a simple transitive sentence corresponds to the figure and the complement - to the ground with the object being a more prominent element of the ground and the adverbial as less prominent , the verb expresses the relationship between figure and ground. So, linguistically, the way to manifest prominence is to put the preferred element into subject position. The influence of this principle is most plausible in symmetric constructions, as illustrated
by the sentences a Susan resembles my sister. b My sister resembles Susan. The role archetypes principle governs the choice of syntactic figure where the figure ground principle alone doesnt work. It should be noted that the role archetypes are by no means a novelty, because role archetypes like agent , patient , instrumental , experiencer are very much the same as cases with Ch.Fillmore, actants , participants with
L.Tiesnere, semantic roles with P.Quirk, theta-roles with A. Radford transformational grammar . In R.Langackers conception the roles are not just a linguistic construct, but a part of cognitive instruments, which we use for both linguistic and mental processing. The role archetypes emerge from our experience, they appear as cognitive constituents of any conceived event or situation. The role of agent refers to a person who initiates motion or physical activity in
objects or other persons. The patient refers to an object or organism, affected by physical impact from outside and undergoes a change of state or is moved to another location. The instrument is an intermediary between agent and patient, the experiencer refers to smn. engaged in mental activities, including emotions, the setting comprises different facets of an event which are present in our minds as background . The setting is stable compared to participants agent, patient,
instrument, experiencer , which are mobile and engaged in physical contact or mental interaction. In linguistic perspective setting as space and time conventionally provides corresponding adverbials, while participants provide subjects and objects. The principle which governs the process of putting a particular role in the subject or in the complement position is that of windowing of attention. According to this principle any element of an event can be viewed as more or less prominent and according
to the ascribed degree can be raised to the status of syntactic figure subject , or syntactic ground object , or syntactic background adverbials of space and time, which also can be of different prominence . Linguistically, a conceived event can be reflected in a number of syntactic constructions 1- 2 or 3-element constructions , which represent the event perspectives. Thus, the 3-element construction provides the overall view of the event, including the agent, patient
and instrument roles as in the sentence Floyd broke the glass with a hammer with the agent viewed as syntactic figure and placed in the subject position. The 2-element construction, profiling the same event, expresses only a certain portion an intermediary stage as in The hammer broke the glass. with the instrument as a syntactic figure and the subject. The 1-element construction, describing the same event, expresses the final stage of the event as in
The glass easily broke. with the patient as a syntactic figure and the subject. R.Langacker notes, that the choice of subject, i.e. syntactic figure is governed by a hierarchy agent-instrument-patient , the hierarchy which repeats structures the event as an action chain in our mind. Due to the principle of windowing of attention setting can be given different degree of prominence and raised to the status of object or subject. Compare the following sentences a
Susan swam in the Channel. b Susan swam across the Channel. c Susan swam the Channel. In a sentence the agent initiates an action which takes place in a certain setting Channel . Linguistically this is expressed by an intransitive structure with a place adverbial. In b sentence the setting is more tangible, it has two boundaries and it is fully traversed by the agent figure, this is implied by the preposition across , as a result, this setting is more prominent
than in a sentence. In c sentence the preposition is dropped and cognitive interpretation will claim that the Channel in its syntactic prominence has moved further away from being a plain setting . It is treated more like a participant in an interaction with the agent-subject, e.g. an enemy that has to be overcome and this is reflected in the object-like use of the noun phrase. Thus, the setting is given the status of object. Greater prominence of setting results in the subject
position of the latter e.g. a The garden is swarming with bees. b There was a loud bang. There is used to express a kind of abstract or unspecified setting. Thus, in cognitive linguistics the use of syntactic structures is largely seen as a reflection of how a situation is conceptualized by the speaker, and this conceptualization is governed by the attention principle. Salient participants , especially, agents, are rendered as subjects and less salient participants
as objects verbs are selected as compatible to the choice of subject and object locative, temporal and many other types of relations are windowed for attention by expressing them as adverbials. L E C T U R E 5. ACTUAL DIVISION OF THE SENTENCE.COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES I. Actual division of the sentence and means of expressing it. II. Actual division of the sentence in terms of cognitive linguistics.
III. The problem of classification of sentence according to the purpose of communication. IV. Communicative types of sentences in Modern English. I. Actual division of the sentence and means of expressing it. One of the basic characteristic features of the sentence is its communicative and informative sufficiency. It means that every sentence should convey some new information in the process of communication.
The interpretation of the sentence from this point of view requires the division of the sentence into two parts. One of them contains the starting point of communication or that already known to the listeners and the other part conveys new information or that not yet known to the listeners and for the sake of which the sentence is constructed. This interpretation of the sentence has been termed the actual division of the sentence or the functional sentence perspective.
The idea of actual division of the sentence has first been put forward by W. Mathesius. He termed the starting point of communication the basis and the new information the nucleus . Recently there came into common use a new pair of terms. They are the theme and the rheme . The theme denotes the starting point of communication, it is an object or phenomenon about which something is reported.
The rheme expresses the information reported, e.g. Their visit to the Blacks was quiet promising. Their visit to the Blacks is the theme , the rest part is the rheme . The theme and the rheme of the sentence may or may not coincide with the subject and the predicate respectively. The actual division in which the theme is expressed by the subject and the rheme - by the predicate
is called direct . Due to a certain context the order of actual division can be changed into the reverse one, in which the rheme is expressed by the subject, while the predicate exposes the theme. This kind of actual division is inverted , compare a This old photo wakes up my memories a case of direct actual division. The theme is expressed by the subject, while the rheme coincides with the predicate b
From behind the corner there appeared a smart car a case of inverted actual division. The rheme is expressed by the subject. There are several formal means of expressing distinction between the theme and the rheme. They are word - order patterns, intonation contours, constructions with introducers, constructions with articles and other determiners, constructions with intensifying particles, constructions with contrastive complexes. With the word - order patterns the rheme is placed towards the end of the
sentence, while the theme is positioned at the beginning of it, when it is necessary, the inversion is used, e.g. Theme rheme 1. Jane stood in the center of the large hall. 2. In the center of the large hall stood Jane. Constructions with introducers, such as the there-patterns and it-patterns, help to identify the subject of the sentence or maybe any other part of the sentence within the it-pattern as its rheme, e.g. 3. There came a loud sound rheme .
4. It was him rheme who made the party a party. Determiners, among them the articles, used as means of forming certain patterns of actual division, divide their functions so that the definite determiners serve as identifiers of the theme while the indefinite determiners serve as identifiers of the rheme, e.g. 5. The man came up to me. 6. A man came up to me. Intensifying particles identify the rheme, e.g 7.
Even she has done it come. 8. He is being so kind. 9. Only then did he realize the situation. Syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes, based on some sort of antithesis, are employed to make explicative the inner contrast inherent in the actual division 10. This is a real story, not a fiction. Intonation presents itself a universal means of expressing the actual division of a sentence in all types of contexts and known as logical accent.
It is inseparable from the other rheme-identifying means mentioned above. The thematic reduction of responses in dialogue speech serves to identify the rheme of the sentence. In these cases the rheme is placed in isolation, e.g. 11 Where did you see her last time London. 12 - Shall we go out tonight? -Yes. The night club. Thus, we may conclude, that the actual division of the sentence is closely connected
with the context of communication and enters the predicative aspect of the sentence. It meets the same function, which is to relate the nominative content of the sentence to reality. II. Actual division of the sentence in terms of cognitive linguistics. In the cognitive approach the problem of actual division of the sentence seems to be correlated with the issue of semantic asymmetry of syntactic constructions and principles which govern semantico-grammatical
accuracy of syntactic structures. The semantic asymmetry is understood as semantic nonsynonymy of two sentences which are the inverse forms of spatial or temporal relations. The semantic asymmetry presupposes semantic and grammatical restrictions imposed by the language system on the process of sentence-formation, and its theme-rheme division accordingly. Compare the sentences a My sister F resembles Madonna
G b Madonna F resembles my sister G b sentence seems impossible c He had two affairs F while he was married G ? d He was married F through -a-period-containing two affairs of his impossible. Restrictions imposed by the language come from the restrictions imposed by the conceptual system, by the mechanism of cognitive anchoring, as termed by
L.Talmy. Within the cognitive approach syntactic structures are understood as formal means by which language represents one concept as a reference point or anchor for another concept. According to L.Talmy cognitive anchoring involves the two fundamental functions of attention cognitive system, that of the Figure and that of the Ground. Thus, The theme-rheme division of the sentence, which is a property of the language, is governed by
the Figure-Ground Segregation, which is a property of the conceptual system. Cognitive anchoring and semantic asymmetry is governed by the definitial characteristics of Figure and Ground. In linguistic usage they can be characterized as follows In simple sentence the Figure is a moving or conceptually moving entity whose site, path or location needs identification, the Ground is a reference entity whose setting identifies the
Figures path or orientation. On the syntactic level Figure and Ground are represented by 2 nominals. In complex sentences the Figure is an event whose location in time needs identification, the Ground is a reference event which characterizes the Figures temporal location. On the level of syntax the
Figure-event is represented in the main clause of a complex sentence, the Ground-event - in the subordinate clause. Compare the sentences a The pen functions as Figure fell off the table functions as Ground . b She Figure resembles him Ground metaphorical extension to nonphysical situations relational state, for example , can be taken as derived from smth. like
She is near him in appearance. c He exploded after he touched the button the button-touching-event is Ground as a fixed, known reference point and the explosion event is Figure as more prominent with respect to the other . Thus, the semantic asymmetry, and therefore the theme-rheme division of the sentence, can be highlighted by choosing objects with different capacities to serve as a reference point, and in this respect it
is clear why the sentence My sister F resembles Madonna G sounds good, while the inverse form Madonna F resembles my sister G doesnt. In simple sentences semantic asymmetry is observed in spatial relations between two objects, in complex sentences - in temporal, causal and other type of inter-event relations. The cognitive functions of Figure and Ground govern the process of conceptual anchoring, they are incorporated
in the grammatical constructs of the language system the Figure-event as appeared in the main clause of a complex sentence and the Ground-event - in the subordinate clause and bring down certain restrictions on the process of sentence-formation, and therefore its theme-rheme division. L. Talmy proposes principles, which govern the asymmetric relations between two events, as represented
in a complex sentence 1. Temporal sequence principle says that in a relation of 2 events the earlier event is Ground and the later event is Figure. In a full complex sentence the Figure-event is in the main clause and Ground-event is in the subordinate clause a She departed F after he arrived G . b He arrived F before she departed G . The favored linguistic expression here is that with after form.
The priority follows from the fact that no language will have simpler means for expressing before than for expressing after . 2. Cause-result principle says that in a causal relation the causing event is Ground and in a complex sentence is in the subordinate clause and the resulting event is Figure and is in the main clause a We stayed home F because he had arrived G . The inverse form is impossible b He arrived F to-the-occasioning-of- our staying home.
3. Inclusion principle governs the relation of temporal inclusion between 2 events, where a temporally containing event is Ground and appears in the subordinate clause, a contained event is Figure and appears in the main clause of a complex sentence a He had 2 affairs F while he was married G . The inverse form is impossible b He was married through F -a-period-containing 2 affairs of his.
4. Contingency principle governs the relation of contingency between 2 events. An event which is necessary for a second event acts as Ground and appears in the subordinate clause, the second event that is contingent or dependent acts as Figure and appears in the main clause of a complex sentence a He dreamt F while the whole time he slept G . but b
He slept F while he dreamt impossible. To sum it all up, the semantic asymmetry of syntactic structures, and therefore their grammatical accuracy, is determined by cognitive functions of Figure and Ground. Figure and Ground govern the process of conceptual anchoring, they are incorporated in the grammatical concepts of the language system compare the principles which govern the semantic asymmetry the Figure-event as appeared in the main clause of a complex sentence and the
Ground-event - in the subordinate clause and bring down certain restrictions on the process of sentence-formation, and therefore its theme-rheme division. III. The problem of classification of sentence according to the purpose of communication. Classification of sentences according to the purpose of communication has always been the subject to criticism and several modifications. Now it has become a tradition in grammar to distinguish three cardinal
communicative types of sentences the declarative sentence, the interrogative sentence, the imperative sentence. Some linguists suggested the 4th type of this classification - the exclamatory sentence B. A. Ilyish , I.P. Ivanova . In modern linguistics however exclamatory sentences are not referred to as a separate communicative type since they cant be opposed to the 3 cardinal types by regular grammatical means such as word - order, the use of special auxiliary forms.
That is why the exclamation can not be considered as a principal of discriminating a communicative type of sentence. Some original classifications of sentence according to the purpose of communication were suggested by Charles Fries for details see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar pp. 252-254 , by G.G. Pocheptzov, L.P. Chachayan and other linguists.
Thus, G.G. Pocheptzov discriminates in addition to proper types of sentences a group of sentences which convey no information and have no subject-predicate division. Among them - addresses Jack, Nora interjectional sent. Oh, well conversational formulas Good morning! How are you doing? Such like sentences have also been mentioned by Ch.
Fries. He called them non-communicative utterances. M.Y. Bloch calls them non-sententional utterances. L.P. Chachayan discriminates the communicative types and types of sentences. which express them. It makes the classification too detailed and complicated for practical purposes, though interesting from the theoretical point of view. G.G. Pocheptzov see
Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка, стр. 271-278 analyses sentences in the light of their pragmatic interpretation, i.e. from the point of view of their communicative intention. The sentences are used to express a certain speech action request, suggestion, promise, threat, e.g. the declarative sentences can be used to express promise or threat, the verb-predicate in the Future-Tense- Form, e.g.
I will show you. What is still remained unsolved here is the problem of the exact system of pragmatic sentence types and means discriminating one type from another. And in this light the traditional classification remains the best one to follow. M.Y. Bloch exposes the communicative properties of sentences in terms of the theory of the actual division of the sentence. He stresses that each communicative type is distinguished by its specific actual division
patterns. The actual division features are revealed in the nature of the rheme of the sentence as the meaningful nucleus of the utterance. The declarative sentence immediately expresses a certain proposition. The actual division presents itself in the most complete form. The rheme of the sentence makes up the center of some statement as such. The question-test reveals the rheme, e.g. The next moment she had recovered
What had happened the next moment The imperative sentence does not express any proposition proper. It is only based on a proposition, without formulating it directly. The proposition in this case is contrasted against the content of the expressed inducement, e.g. Lets get it ready. The premise It is not ready Thus, the rheme of the imperative sentence expresses a wanted or unwanted action. The actual division of the interrogative sentence is determined by the
fact that the interrogative sentence expresses an inquiry about information which the speaker does not possess. Therefore the rheme of the interrogative sentence, as the nucleus of the inquiry, is informatively open for details see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar pp. 255-261 . IV. Communicative types of sentences in Modern English. The three cardinal communicative types are strictly opposed to one another in
Modern English by their meaning and form. Each sentence type is distinguished by the specific word-order and intonation, by the absence or presence of the interrogative pronouns or forms of the verb-predicate. Thus, the declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative. It is built up around the direct word-order pattern, e.g. He knew him pretty well. The imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative.
It urges the listener, in the form of request or command, to perform or not to perform a certain action, e.g. Lets do it right away! The structure of the imperative sentence is characterized by the lack of the subject and by the imperative mood form of the verb-predicate. The interrogative sentence expresses a question and is naturally connected with the listener, e.g Are you all right Yes, thank you. Structurally the interrogative sentence is characterized by the reverse
word-order pattern, the use of interrogative pronoun and interrogative forms of verb-predicate. Alongside of the 3 cardinal communicative types there are also 6 intermediary subtypes distinguished by mixed communicative features. The intermediary communicative types may be identified between all the three cardinal communicative correlations - statement-question, statement-inducement, inducement-question. They have grown as a result of the transference of certain characteristic features from one
communicative type of sentence to another. The first one in the classification is interrogative-declarative, i.e. declarative by its form and interrogative by its meaning, e.g. Id like to know what you are going to do under the circumstances. The intermediary subtypes usually render some connotations, such as, insistency in asking for information, a request for permission to perform an action, etc.
The second subtype is declarative-interrogative, i.e. interrogative by its form and declarative by its meaning - the so-called rhetorical questions, is best seen in proverbs and maxims, e.g. Can a leopard change his spots? The next subtype is imperative-declarative, i.e. inducement expressed in the form of a declarative sentence. It is regularly achieved - by means of constructions with modal verbs, e.g. You must take care of him. You ought to follow the instructions.
You cant see her -by interaction of grammatical elements of the sentence with its lexical elements, e.g. I guess youll excuse me if I say what I have to say. You will then let me have a look at his picture. Declarative-imperative, i.e. imperative constructions used to express a declarative meaning, a characteristic feature of proverbs, e.g. Live and learn. Dont put it off till tomorrow if you can do it today.
Imperative-interrogative, inducement in the form of a question, is employed in order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request, invitation, suggestion, softening of a command, e.g Why dont you help him out of the car Would you like to go for a walk? Interrogative-imperative sentence induces the listener not to action but to speech, e.g. Please tell me what the right number is. It should be noted that all cardinal and intermediary communicative
sentences types are typical of Modern English and therefore should be reflected in practical teaching of English. L E C T U R E 6. SYNTAX OF A COMPOSITE SENTENCE THE STRUCTURE OF A COMPLEX SENTENCE I . Composite sentence as a polypredicative unit. II. Classifications of complex sentences according to the types of clauses in Modern English. III. Other classifications of complex sentences in
Modern English. I.Composite sentence as a polypredicative unit. The composite sentence is a general term for all types of sentences with more than one predicative line. Composite sentence in which clauses are subordinated to one another is called a complex sentence сложноподчиненное . Composite sentence with coordinated clauses is termed as a compound sentence сложносочиненное . The composite sentence in general is formed by 2 or more predicative lines as different from the simple
sentence. Composite sentence is a polypredicative construction which reflects 2 or more elementary situations making up a unity. Each predicative unit in a composite sentence makes up a clause. This clause corresponds to a separate sentence but is not equivalent to it. Lets consider the following sentence When she entered the hall the party was in full swing. This sentence includes 2 clauses which correspond to the following sentences
She entered the hall. The party was in full swing. The logical difference between the composite sentence and the sequence of simple sentences is in the purpose of communication. The independent sentences are utterances each expressing an event of self-sufficient significance. The communicative purpose of the sentence discussed is to inform of the fact that the party was in full swing and is destroyed in a sequence of simple sentences.
Thus, we see that the composite sentence, as a particular structural unit of language is remarkable for its own purely semantic merits, it exposes the genuine logic of events making up a situational unity. The fact proves the unity of the 2 predicative units within the composite sentence. The composite sentence including no more than 2 predicative lines is called elementary. Composite sentence displays 2 principal types of clause connection hypotaxis - that of subordination
and parataxis - that of coordination. Its remarkable that the initial rise of hypotaxis and parataxis as forms of composite sentences can be traced back to the early stages of language development, i.e. to the times when the language had no writing. The illustrations of the said syntactic relations are contained, for example, in the old English epic Beowulf , dated from the VII c. A.D. Subordination is revealed between clauses of unequal rank, one of them being dominated by
the other. From the structural point of view it means that one clause, the dominated or subordinate one, is in a notional position of the other clause which is a principal one . It means that a subordinate clause refers to one notional constituent expressed by a word or a phrase in a principal clause. From the communicative point of view a subordinate clause renders the information which is additional to that of the principal clause.
Coordination is observed between the syntactically equal sentences, e.g. Soon he left the house and I followed him. Ranking of clauses into equal or unequal comes from their relation to one another. A sequential clause in a composite sentence with coordination refers to the whole of the leading clause. It is due to this fact that the position of a coordinate clause is rigidly fixed in all cases. As for the composite sentences with subordination a subordinate clause usually refers
to one notional constituent in a principal clause, e.g. I would never believe the silly fact that he had been under her influence. There are two general ways of combining clauses into a sentence. They are syndetic conjunctional and asyndetic non-conjunctional . According to the traditional point of view all composite sentences are classed into compound sentences
and complex sentences, syndetic or asyndetic type of clause connection being specifically displayed with both classes. Consider the following examples compound sent. asyndetic syndetic The day was hot, I was extremely disappointed we felt exhausted. but she never noticed it. complex sent. asyndetic syndetic with That was a fantastic That was a fantastic attributive show I remembered show which I remembered clause forever. forever. with objective
We realized at once it We realized at once that it clauses was a strong argument. was a strong argument. with predicative The news is she did The news is that she did clauses leave the city. leave the city. Thus, the composite sentence is a polypredicative unit revealing 2 or more predicative lines connected with one another by coordination, that is a compound sentence, or subordination, that is a complex sentence. II. Classifications of complex sentences according to the types of clauses in
Modern English. The complex sentence is a polypredicative unit built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from 2 or more base sentences one of which becomes the principal clause and the other its subordinate clause. The principle and the subordinate clauses form a semantico-syntactic unity. It cannot be destroyed without affecting the structure of the sentence. The existence of either of clauses is supported by the existence of the other, e.g.
He looked as though he were looking at an absolute stranger. One cant eliminate either of the clauses and preserve the grammatical structure of the sentence at that ?He looked. As though he were looking at an absolute stranger. The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector subordinator or asyndetically. Sometimes asyndetic connection is called zero subordinator.
In this way the meaningful function of the asyndetic connection is stressed. The principal clause dominates the subordinate one positionally, but it doesnt mean that their syntactic status determines the actual division of the sentence. An important role in theme-rheme division is played by the order of clauses. Compare the following sentences 1. He is called Mitch the theme , because his name is
Mitchell the rheme principal clause expresses the starting point, while the subordinate clause renders the main idea the speakers explanation of the reason of calling him Mitch . 2. As his name is Mitchell the theme , he is called Mitch the rheme the informative roles will be re-shaped accordingly. One of the central problems concerning the complex sentences deals with the principles of classification
of subordinate clauses. Within the traditional linguistics the 2 different principles have been put forward. The first is functional and the second is categorial. In accord with the functional principle subordinate clauses are classed on the basis of their similarity in function with parts of a simple sentence. Namely, they are classed into subject, predicative, object, attributive, adverbial clauses. Actually, there are certain clauses that have no correspondences among
the parts of a sentence, for example, some adverbial clauses. Still a general functional similarity between the clauses and parts of a simple sentence does exist and it can be clearly seen from their comparison, e.g. I was completely frustrated yesterday yesterday can be substituted by a clause - I was completely frustrated when they told me about it yesterday the clause answers the same question
when Thus, the functional classification of subordinate clauses, based on the analogy with the parts of the simple sentence, reflects the essential properties of the complex sentences. The categorial classification draws a parallel between subordinate clauses and parts of speech. According to the categorial principle subordinate clauses are classed by their nominative properties, that is on their analogy with the part-of- speech classification of notional words.
From this point of view all subordinate clauses are divided into 3 categorial groups. The first group is formed by the substantive-nominal clauses. It includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. They are also called noun-clauses and are similar to the nominative function of a noun. Their noun-like nature is easily revealed by substitution, e.g.
I thought up what we could do under the circumstances the clause can be substituted by the plan - I thought up the plan. The second group of clauses is called qualification-nominal or adjective clauses. They name an event as a certain characteristic of another event. The adjective-like nature of these clauses can also be proved by substitution, e.g. The man whom you saw in the hall was our client That man was our client e.g.
Did you find a room where we could hold a meeting Did you find such kind of room? The third group of clauses can be called adverbial. They name an event as a dynamic characteristic of another event. Adverbial clauses are best tested by transformations, e.g. They will meet us half way if we follow the agreement
They will meet us half way on condition that we follow the agreement e.g. I could hardly make up any plan, as I did not know the details I could hardly make up any plan for the reason that I did not know the details. In conclusion it should be noted that the discussed principles of classification functional and categorial are mutually complementary for details see
Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar p. 311 . III. Other classifications of complex sentences in Modern English. Complex sentences can also be classed according to the intensity of connection between the principal and the subordinate clauses. Within the cognitive approach this criterion of complex sentences classification is viewed as principle of conceptual integration of clauses see, for example,
J.R. Taylors classification of clauses in Taylor J.R. Cognitive Grammar. 2002 Further Readings on English Syntax this book, p. 57-60 . The classification of complex sentences based on the intensity of connection between clauses has been introduced by N.S. Pospelov, who divided all subordinate clauses and their connections into obligatory and optional, and on this account all complex sentences of minimal structure
are classed into one-member complexes, appearing in obligatory subordinate connection and two-member complexes with an optional connection. The obligatory connection is characteristic of subject, predicative and object clauses. It means that without the subordinate clause the principal clause can not exist as a complete syntactic unit, e.g. The thing is that they dont know the facts you cant just say The thing is The optional connection is typical of adverbial clauses and attributive clauses of descriptive
type. These clauses can be easily deleted without affecting the principal clause as a self-dependent unit of information, e.g. He chose a large room which overlooked the sea. Extending this classification to all complex sentences, not only to those of minimal structure M.Y. Bloch introduced the notions of monolythic and segregative types of sentence structures. Monolythic constructions are built upon obligatory subordinative connections while segregative complexes
are based upon optional subordinative connections. M.Y. Bloch discriminates 4 basic types of monolythic complexes according to the degree of syntactic obligation and its reasons complementary for details see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar p. 330 . It should be also noted that complex sentences with two or more subordinate clauses can be of
two types of subordination arrangement parallel and consecutive. Parallel subordination is observed when subordinate clauses immediately refer to one and the same principal clause, e.g. I knew that he would like the trip and that his wife would approve of the idea both the clauses refer to the principal clause. Consecutive subordination presents a hierarchy of clausal levels. In this hierarchy one subordinate clause is subordinated to another, e.g.
I thought you knew how to react under the circumstances. The syntactic arrangement classification of complex sentences is definitely useful. It gives the evaluation of the depth of subordination - one of the essential syntactic characteristics of the complex sentence. Thus, the traditional structural linguistics suggests the interpretation of the complex sentence based on the analysis of its semantico-syntactic properties.
The complex sentence is viewed as a subordinative arrangement of clauses, one being the principal and the rest subordinate. The existing classifications of complex sentences are built up around the semantic difference of clauses, the essence and intensity of the subordinate connection. L E C T U R E 7. SYNTAX OF A COMPOSITE SENTENCE THE COMPOUND SENTENCE. THE STRUCTURE AND TYPES OF SEMI-
COMPOSITE SENTENCES IN MODERN ENGLISH I. The problem of a compound sentence as a polypredicative unit. II. The structure of a semi-composite sentence. Types of semi-composite sentences. I. The problem of a compound sentence as a polypredicative unit. Compound sentence is a composite sentence, the clausal parts of which are equal in their status and are connected on the principle of coordination. The main semantic relations between the clauses in the
compound sentence are copulative соединительные , adversative противительные , disjunctive разделительные , causal причинные , consequential следственные , resultative результативные . Similar relations are observed between independent sentences in the text. Proceeding from this fact some linguists deny the existence of the compound sentence as a polypredicative unit for details see Иофик Л.Л. Сложное предложение в новоанглийском языке
Л 1968 . But this idea should be rejected on account of both syntactic and semantic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding sequence of independent sentences in the text. The compound sentence denotes the closeness of connection between the reflected events, while the independent sentences present the looseness of this connection. The first clause in the compound sentence is called leading and the successive clause is sequential.
From the structural point of view the connection between the clauses can be either syndetical e.g. She did it on her own initiative, but no one noticed it , or asyndetical e.g. It was too late, the papers were destroyed. From a semantico-syntactical point of view the connection between clauses can be regarded as marked or unmarked. The unmarked coordination is realized by the coordinative conjunction and and also asyndetically.
The semantic nature of the unmarked connection is not explicitly specified. The unmarked connection presents mainly copulative and enumerative relations, e.g. Police troops engaged in battle with a militant group of 15 people and six of the militants were killed. Police troops engaged in battle with a militant group of 15 people, six of the militants were killed. The broader connective meanings of these constructions can be exposed by equivalent marked connectors
the sentence I had to stay at home, he was about to come. presents causal relation which is explicated in the construction I had to stay at home, for because he was about to come. The marked coordination is effected by the connectors. Each semantic relation is marked by the semantics of the connector. In particular, connectors - but, yet , still, however express adversative relations - the discontinuous
connectors both and, neither nor express correspondingly positive and negative copulative relations - the connectors so, therefore, consequently express causal consequence. Compound sentence can often be transformed into complex sentences, because coordinative connectors and subordinative ones correlate semantically, e.g the sentence The place had a sinister look, and so we decided to leave the
Marbles as soon as possible. may be transformed into a complex one We decided to leave the Marbles as soon as possible because the place had a sinister look the sentence exposes causal relation семантическая маркированность связок увеличивается от and , so в сложносочиненном к because в сложноподчиненном . Thus, the subordinative connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative connection, since the latter is semantically less refined , i.e. more general.
The diagnostic role of the subordinative connections is especially important for the unmarked coordination. The correlation between the complex and compound sentences gives the reason to speak about syntactic synonymy of the level of the composite sentence. II. The structure and types of semi-composite sentences. The described composite sentences are formed by minimum 2 clauses each having a subject and a predicate
of its own. It means that the predicative lines in these sentences are expressed separately and explicitly. Alongside of these completely composite sentences there exist polypredicative constructions in which one predicative line is not explicitly or completely expressed. These sentences, containing 2 or more predicative lines, which are presented in fusion with one another, are called semi-composite sentences. One of this lines can be identified as the leading while the others
make their semi-predicative expansion of the sentence. The semi-composite sentence presents an intermediary construction between the composite sentence and the simple sentence. Its surface structure is similar to that of an expanded simple sentence because it displays only one completely expressed predicative line. Its deep structure is similar to that of a composite sentence since it is derived from more than one
base sentences, e.g. She saw him dancing is derived from 2 base sentences She saw him. He was dancing Trapped by the fire, the animal could hardly escape adverbial, not attributive, as it can be transformed into As the animal was trapped by the fire, it could hardly escape - is derived from The animal was trapped by the fire. The animal could hardly escape . According to the structure of the semi-composite sentences, they are divided into semi-complex and
semi-compound ones, which correspond to the proper complex and compound sentences. The semi-complex sentence is built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from 2 or more base sentences, one is matrix and the other is insert. The matrix sentence becomes the dominant part of the resulting construction and the insert sentence - its subordinate semi-clause. The insert sentence becomes embedded in one of the syntactic positions
of the matrix sentence, e.g. I could see a tall man, coming in our direction embedded in the attributive position The semi-compound sentence is built up on the principle of coordination. It is derived from 2 or more base sentences having an identical element. These sentences being fused into a semi-compound construction share this element either syndetically or asyndetically. These are sentences with homogeneous coordinated subjects or predicates, e.g.
I composed my thoughts and gave a proper answer I composed my thoughts. I gave a proper answer. The semi-complex sentences fall into a number of subtypes according to the character of predicative fusion. Predicative units can be fused by the process of position-sharing word-sharing or by the process of direct linear expansion. The sentences based on position-sharing are divided into those of subject-sharing and those of object-
sharing. The semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built round the common subject, e.g. She entered the room an unhappy woman She entered the room. She was an unhappy woman. In the position of the predicative of the construction different classes of words are used 1 nouns, e.g. He turned up at the party a handsome, grown-up man. 2 adjectives, e.g. The wind blew cold. 3 participles both present and past, e.g.
She appeared bewildered. He stood staring at her во всех случаях заполняется именная часть составного сказуемого матричного предложения . Semi-complex sentences of object-sharing are built up round the word which performs the function of the object in the matrix sentence and that of the subject in the insert sentence, e.g. She saw him coming. She saw him come. The adjunct to the shared object is expressed by 1 an infinitive, e.g.
She let him come in. 2 a present or past participle, e.g. Ive never seen the man acting like that. Ive never heard the story told like that. 3 a noun, e.g. He announced the performance a flop. 4 an adjective, e.g. He cooked the stove black заполняется позиция дополнения, определения, обстоятельства в матричной конструкции . The semantic relations between the 2 connected events expressed by the object-
sharing sentence can be of three basic types - simultaneity in the same place, e.g. She saw him dancing - cause and result, e.g. I helped him out of the car - mental attitude, e.g. I find the place great. The sentences based on semi-predicative linear expansion fall into those of attributive complication, adverbial complication, nominal-phrase complication. Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are derived from 2 base sentences.
The insert sentence drops out its subject and is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to any notional part of the matrix sentence. The attributive semi-clause may contain 1 a past participle, e.g. That was the book written by a famous French writer. 2 present participle, e.g. Soon we found a room opening onto the sea.
3 an adjective, e.g. I loved the place, calm and romantic. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from 2 base sentences, one of which the insert one is reduced and performs an adverbial function in the matrix sentence, e.g. 1. When a young girl, she liked to travel on foot. 2. Being late, we failed to see the beginning of the film.
3. The windows being closed, she did not hear the noise in the street. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are classed into - conjoint совмещенные constructions, where the subject of the insert sentence is identical with that of the matrix sentence , as in 1,2 - absolute constructions, where the subjects of the insert and the matrix sentences are not identical, as in 3 . Conjoint adverbial semi-clauses are introduced by conjunctions, expressing temporal, local,
causal, conditional, comparative relations or are joined to the dominant clause asyndetically, revealing temporal or causal semantics, e.g. Being tired, I could not read the article causal semi-clause, it can be transformed into As I was tired I could not read for more examples see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar p. 349 . Absolute adverbial semi-clauses are joined asyndetically or by the conjunction with, revealing
temporal, causal, circumstantial semantics, e.g. With all these people waiting for me, I could not postpone the meeting causal semi-clause . Semi-complex sentences of nominal phrase complication are derived from 2 base sentences , one of which is partially nominalized and performs one of the nominal subject or object positions or prepositional adverbial functions in the matrix sentence. The nominalization can be of 2 types the gerundial nominalization
and the infinitival nominalization, e.g. 1. His coming late annoyed everybody The fact that he came late 2. For him to come so late was unusual It was unusual that he came late. 3. Lets consider our going to the country. Gerundial and infinitival phrases in these examples are used in nominal semi-clauses, performing either the function of subject as in His coming late and For him to come or that of object as in
Lets consider our . In contrast with infinitival phrases, gerundial phrases perform the function of adverbial and are used with prepositions, e.g. She went away without saying a word As she went away she didnt say a word. The prepositional use of gerundial adverbial phrases differentiates it from the participial adverbial phrase as a constituent of the semi-complex sentence of adverbial complication. Semi-compound sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of coordination.
Semi-compound sentence is derived from 2 base sentences having an identical element performing the syntactic function of the subject or that of the predicate. The semi-compound sentences fall into those with coordinated subjects or coordinated predicates with syndetic or asyndetic connection. The semi-compound sentence of subject coordination is derived from base sentences having identical predicates, e.g. First
Simon entered the room and then his friend. The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination is derived from base sentences having identical subjects, e.g. She sat down and looked up at him. He opened the door to see a young woman outside. The syndetic formation of semi-compound sentences with coordinated predicates is effected by pure conjunctions, such as and copulative but , or , nor adversative both and simple copulative relation not only but
also copulative antithesis either or disjunctive neither nor copulative exclusion and by conjunctive adverbials such as then action ordering , so consequence , just limitation , only limitation , yet adversative-concessive , e.g. They can neither read nor write, nor comprehend such concepts for more examples see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar p. 354-355 . Thus, the semantic relations which are expressed by conjunctions and conjunctive adverbials
are as follows copulative connection of events, contrast, disjunction, consequence, limitation - copulative and both and simple copulative not only but copulative antithesis neither nor copulative exclusion - disjunction either or - consequence so - adversative or contrast but, yet, still, however - limitation just, only. The asyndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence with coordinated predicates is close to the syndetic and -formation without a definite mark of the semantic relations .
The central connective meaning of the asyndetic connection of predicative parts is enumeration of events, either parallel or consecutive, e.g. The crowd shouted, pushed, elbowed at the doors parallel He stopped at the shop for a minute, cast a glance at the shop-window, made some recommendations consecutive . In conclusion it should be stressed that alongside of the complete composite sentences there exist in Modern English semi-composite sentences in which polypredication is expressed in a fused implicit
way. L E C T U R E 8. SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS. SENTENCE TYPOLOGY WITHIN A COGNITIVE APPROACH I. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts represented by syntactic constructions. II. The problem of sentence typology within a cognitive approach a
L.Talmys classification of syntactic structures b J.R. Taylors conception of sentence classification. I. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts represented by syntactic constructions. There are two main approaches to the study of the sentences in cognitive linguistics investigations.
The first one brings into focus the observation of the concepts represented by syntactic constructions, their nature, content and structure A.Goldberg, L. Talmy, N.N. Boldyrev, L.A. Fours . The second one concerns the sentence typology and principles of sentence classification L.Talmy, J.R. Taylor . One of the semantic investigations of the syntactic structures within a cognitive approach has been started by A.Goldberg.
She argues that constructions are conventionalized pieces of grammatical knowledge and they exist independently of the particular lexical items which instantiate them. The constructions brought under her observation are ditransitive construction, caused-motion construction, resultative construction, way construction. Ditransitive construction in the most general sense represents transfer between an agent and a recipient and schematically it can be defined as
Subject Agent - Predicate Cause-Receive - Object 1 Recipient - Object 2 Patient , e.g. Joe loaned Bob a lot of money. Caused-motion construction represents the situation where one object the causer directly causes the motion of the other object Subject Causer - Predicate Cause-Move - Object - Obl Goal , e.g. They laughed the poor guy out of the room.
Resultative construction represents the situation where a patient undergoes a change of state as a result of the action denoted by the verb. Resultatives can apply to direct objects of some transitive verbs, e.g. I had brushed my hair smooth or to subjects of particular intransitive verbs, e.g. The river froze solid. Thus, resultative construction can be defined as Subject Agent - Predicate Cause-Become - Object Patient -
Obl-adjective or prepositional phrase Result-Goal for transitive resultatives, and Subject Patient - Predicate Become - Obl Result-Goal for intransitive resultatives. Way construction represents the situation which involves the motion of the subject along some path. The construction admits two interpretations means interpretation and manner interpretation. The first one means that that the path of motion is created by some action of the subject, e.g.
He pushed his way through the others He bought his way into the exclusive country club metaphorical motion . The second one means that the path is pre-established, e.g. They were clanging their way up and down the narrow streets. The construction can be defined as Subject Creator-Theme - Predicate Create-Move - Object way Createe-
Way - Obl Path . The semantics of a construction is viewed as a family of closely related senses. It means that one and the same construction is paired with different but related senses, one of which is a central sense a prototypical one , the others non-prototypical ones are the senses which are its metaphorical extension. Thus, within the semantics of the ditransitive construction A.Goldberg distinguishes the central sense the actual successful transfer e.g.
He gave her a lot of money and metaphorical extension senses, such as, causal events as transfers e.g. The rain brought us some time , communication as reception , e.g. She told Joe a fairy tale , perception as reception e.g. He showed Bob the view , actions as reception entities e.g. She blew him a kiss , facts and assumptions as objects which are given e.g.
Ill give you that assumption . Thus, a syntactic construction is viewed by A. Goldberg as a category structured by the prototypical principle. The main object of her further study is to make proposals for how to relate verb and construction. For this purpose she proposes the notion semantic constraints . The latter are the principles which license the use of verb in the construction.
Thus, the semantic constraints for the caused-motion construction, for example, are the constraints on the causer and on the type of causation. Constraint on the Causer presupposes that the causer can be an agent or a natural force, e.g. Chris pushed the piano up the stairs The wind blew the ship off the course. Constraints on Causation, i.e. constraints on what kind of situations causations can be encoded by
the Caused-Motion Construction, are as follows I. No Cognitive Decision can mediate between the causing event and the entailed motion, e.g. Sam frightened coaxed, lured Bob out of the room. II. The Implication of Actual Motion if motion is not strictly entailed, it must be presumed as an implication and can be determined pragmatically, e.g. Sam asked invited, urged him into the room.
III. Causations can be Conventionalized Causations - causations which involve an intermediate cause, i.e. are indirect, but cognitively packaged as a single event, e.g. The invalid owner ran his favorite horse in the race . IV. Incidental Motion Causations incidental motion is a result of the activity causing the change of state which is performed in a conventional way. It means that the path of motion may be specified and
the causation may be encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction, e.g. Sam shredded the papers into the garbage pail. The action performed by the agent typically implies some predictable incidental motion. V. Path of Motion the path of motion must be completely determined by the causal force. Which paths count as completely determined is in part a matter of pragmatics, e.g. They laughed the poor guy into his car. The semantic constraints have been proposed in an attempt
to show principled patterns where there seems to be idiosyncrasy compare the examples with relative verbs Pat coaxed him into the room sounds correct, while Pat encouraged him into the room does not . For details see Goldberg Adele E. Constructions a construction grammar approach to argument structure Chicago University of Chicago press, 1995 Further Readings on
English Syntax this book, pp. 60-65 . The main value of A.Goldbergs observation of the senses encoded by the constructions is that it deals with the analysis of the conceptual constituents of the events, such as agent, patient, causer, path , as well as the processual parameters of events aspectual characteristics, characteristics of motion - directed motion, self-propelled motion, etc. The constituent content is determined by lexical semantics and general
world knowledge. The linguistic investigations within the cognitive approach for the present give the priority to the issue of concepts represented by the simple sentence. Thus, it has been stated that syntactic concepts represent both linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge in their structure N.N. Boldyrev and L.A. Fours it has been observed that the simple sentence as a linguistic unit represents not only a single event but also an event complex, when the syntactic pattern shapes
two distinct events into a unitary one - the phenomenon termed by L.Talmy event integration . In other words, the linguists have performed a study of the nature and structure of concepts represented by the simple sentence. The basic target of N.N. Boldyrev and L.A. Fours study is to observe the nature of the concepts represented by simple sentences and propose concepts typology. The main principle governing the concept typology is the assumption that
syntactic concepts represent both linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge in their structure. L.A. Fours argues that there are three formats of representing knowledge in syntax of the simple sentence and points out a configurational format, an actualizational format and a format of mixed type combining properties of configurational and actualizational formats . Configurational format includes concepts which are represented by the basic syntactic configurations
schemes defining the rules of combining words into constructions. Actualizational format includes concepts which are verbalized by particular types of sentences. The concepts of configurational format are autonomous action автономное действие -represented by the intransitive construction configuration, as A moves to B in the most generalized sense, and directed action направленное действие - represented by the transitive
construction configuration, as A moves B . Configurational format represents the linguistic knowledge the knowledge of the transitive and intransitive congigurations which is common for different types of sentences. Actualizational format represents the extralinguistic knowledge - the knowledge of the different types of events as they become verbalized in the basic configurational structures through the concrete lexical content. The concepts of these format are actionality акциональность , e.g.
They moved to the city. uncausative construction , causativity каузативность , e.g. He galloped the horse forward. causative construction , process процессуальность , e.g. The cup cracked decausative construction , state состояние , e.g. Cables and wires ran in all directions quality свойство , e.g. The clothes washed well. medial construction . Thus, within the actualizational format the two configurational
structures actualize particular event types reflecting the world ontology through the speakers intentions, in other words, the transitive and intransitive constructions as combined with lexical units of the sentence profile various aspects of events and thus help to conceptualize them as particular event types actions, processes, states, quality, causations . In this format extra-linguistic knowledge prevails. Format of mixed type - the format combining configurational and actualizational ones - represent both
linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge. This format includes configurations of combining words into sentences which are different from the transitive and intransitive ones. They are there-constructions , e.g. There is a house on the corner. There existed an inborn instinct of aggression it-constructions, e.g. Its so lonely here. It is raining hard inverted constructions, e.g.
Now there comes another. There above him stood Fleur elliptical constructions, e.g. Are you going to write that composition for me? I have to know If I get the time, I will. If I dont I wont. There-constructions verbalize the conceptual characteristics of object existence , it-constructions - those of process orientation or quality orientation , inverted constructions - temporal parameters and spatial parameters , elliptical constructions - sense verification
. Thus, within syntax of the simple sentence there exist three formats of concepts. They are based on aspects of world ontology, speaker ontology and language ontology. Each of these formats is characterized by its own mode of knowledge coding and reflects the dynamic character of speech and thinking processes. For details see Болдырев Н.Н Фурс Л.А. Репрезентация языковых и неязыковых знаний синтаксическими средствами
Филологические науки. 3, 2004, стр. 67-74 Фурс Л.А. Форматы представления знаний в синтаксисе Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. Вып.1 2004, стр. 166-181. One of the basic arguments of cognitive approach to syntax says that grammatical constructions provide alternative imagery conceptualizations for the same event or situation. The idea of imagery function of grammatical constructions was formulated as a principle of conceptual
alternativity by L.Talmy and became the basis in his investigation of conceptual content of syntactic structures. L.Talmy brings into focus a certain type of event complex which can acquire alternative conceptualizations through different syntactic structures. The different ways of conceptualization of the same content is viewed in the following examples a The guy left the room because they had laughed at him complex sentence . b
They laughed at him and he left the room compound sentence . c They laughed the guy out of the room simple sentence . On the one hand, the event complex can be conceptualized as composed of two simple events and relation between them and expressed by a composite sentence. On the other hand, the event complex can be conceptualized as a single event and expressed by a simple
sentence. L. Talmy proposed the term event integration to identify the process of conceptual fusion of distinct events into a unitary one. L.Talmy studies complex events that are prone to conceptual integration and representation by a single clause. L. Talmy calls this type of complex events a macro-event and distinguishes several event- types Motion, Change of State, Action Correlation and some others, e.g. Motion -
The bottle floated into the cave. I kicked the ball into the box Change of State this event-type involves any process or activity which determines the dynamics of the macro-event and causes a change in some of its property - The door blew shut. I kicked the door shut Action Correlation involves two or more activities associated with each other and performed by different agents
- I jog together with him. I jog along with him. I outran him. L.Talmy observes the conceptual structure of these event-types and linguistic means of its representation. The general idea of the macro-event as Motion, Change of State, etc. is expressed in the syntactic structure of the sentence by satellites verb particles, prefixes, resultatives adjectives , prepositional phrases containing a locative noun , e.g.
The coin melted free from the ice . He waved us into the hall. The main verb in the predicate position in such like sentences expresses the idea of circumstance event within the macro-event, such as Manner, Cause, Constitutiveness, etc e.g. Manner - I rolled the pen across the table Motion I eased him awake gently. He jerked awake Change of
State Cause - I blew the pen across the table Motion I shook him awake Change of State Constitutiveness - I ate with Jane. I ran after Jane. I outcooked him Action Correlation . Thus, L.Talmy has studied the conceptual structure of the event complexes as it appears mapped onto the linguistic forms. For details see
Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. 2000 Further Readings on English Syntax this book, pp. 65-73 . Summing it all up, it is necessary to note that the study of the concepts represented by the syntactic structures is centered around the following principles - syntactic structures reveal a concept-structuring function in the language, i.e. syntactic structures provide alternative conceptualizations of the event -conceptual content expressed in the linguistic
forms integrates linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge - syntactic categories are viewed as categories organized in accord with the prototypical principle of category structuring. The observation of the recent studies shows that the linguists have examined practically the same syntactic structures, but from slightly different angles. As a result, various facets of the conceptual content of the syntactic structures have been profiled. The further investigation of the syntactic concepts
and the linguistic means of their representation is more likely to be based on the elaboration and unification of the recent cognitive linguistic findings of syntax study. II. The problem of sentence typology within a cognitive approach. The study of the sentence in the traditional linguistics is based on viewing the sentence as a predicative unit, sentences are classed in accord with a the number of predicative lines implicitly or explicitly
represented in the sentence. simple, composite, semi-composite b types of syntactic connection between 2 or more predicative lines in composite and semi-composite sentences c syntactic and semantic specifications of the sentences within the major classes. Thus, the main points of the sentence typology in Modern English concern the structural properties of the sentence as a purely linguistic entity. The main target of the sentence investigation in the cognitive linguistics, as different from the traditional
structural and functional linguistics, is to introduce the sentence classification, based on correlation of grammatical constructions and concepts represented by them as well as conceptualization processes. L. Talmy has made an attempt to introduce the classification of syntactic structures which represent cross-related events in accord with the cognitive functions of Figure and Ground. In linguistic tradition syntactic structures, representing cross-related events,
such as temporal, causal, concessive, additive and etc. are viewed as one of the sentence-classes that reflect different types of relations between events. L. Talmy provides a classification of syntactic structures which represent cross-related Figure-Ground events one of the events is a Figure-event, i.e. bears the cognitive function of Figure, and the other is a Ground event, i.e. functions as a
Ground and examines semantic relationships that extend across such structures. All the syntactic structures of the said type are divided into those where there is only one Ground-event reference they are simple sentences and complex sentences and the syntactic structures where the Ground-event appears twice they are copy-cleft sentences . The first syntactic structure which represents the 2 events is a simple sentence and it represents
cross-related events as nominals. Each of these nominals can either be a nominalized clause or some noun or pronoun that refers to the whole event. The range of cross-event relations, which are concession , reason , additionality , is realized by the corresponding preposition or prepositional complex a concession Their going out was in spite of their feeling tired. b reason Their staying home was because of their feeling tired.
Nominalized clauses can be substituted by pro-forms particularly by nominal pro-clauses this or that c This was in spite of that. d This was because of that. The next syntactic structure which represents cross-event relations is a complex sentence. Within this set of syntactic structures L. Talmy distinguishes complex sentences with subordinating preposition and complex sentences with subordinating conjunction.
They express relations of concession with the help of prepositions in spite of, despite conjunctions although, though, even though reason - with the help of preposition because of conjunctions because, since, as a concession They went out in spite of their feeling tired. b concession They went out even though they were feeling tired. The Figure event is expressed by a finite principal clause, and the
Ground event is represented by a subordinate clause introduced by a subordinating preposition or subordinating conjunction. Copy-cleft sentences, as it has been said, represent the Ground event twice. Copy-cleft sentences can express a cross-event relation either explicitly or implicitly, i.e. there are copy-cleft sentences with the explicit representation of a cross-event relation and copy-cleft sentences without the explicit representation of a cross-event relation.
Copy-cleft sentences which explicitly express a cross-event relation can be of two types the paratactic copy-cleft sentences and connective copy-cleft sentences. Paratactic sentences can be regarded as a succession of 2 separate sentences. The reference to the Ground-event appears once in the finite form and once as a nominalized clause a concession They were feeling tired they went out despite their feeling tired.
Connective copy-cleft sentences retain the constituents of a paratactic sent. and adds a connective, which is a coordinating conjunction and or but a They were feeling tired, but they went out despite their feeling tired. We have seen the copy-cleft sentences with subordinate clauses in a full form but there are cases of copy-cleft sentences where subordinate clauses are replaced by pro-forms or pro-clauses. They can be of different types nominal pro- clauses, adverbial pro-clauses and conjunctional pro-clauses.
The pro-forms represent the second reference to the Ground-event. Nominal pro-clause is typically expressed by the form that and takes part in the prepositional phrases, e.g. despite that, because of that, after that, in addition to that, e.g. They were feeling tired, but they went out despite that. Adverbial pro-clause stands as a substitution for a subordinating prepositional phrase with nominal
pro-clause. For example, the form despite that can be replaced for the form anyway, e.g. They were feeling tired, but they went out anyway. Adverbial pro-clauses express the semantic relation of - concession is expressed by anyway , even so, all the same, nevertheless, still, yet, however, though - reason is expressed by so, as a counterpart of because of that - posteriority is expressed by then as a counterpart of after that - additionality
is expressed by also as a counterpart of in addition to that Conjunctional pro-clause is an equivalent to the combination of a coordinating conjunction and an adverbial pro-clause. These forms express the semantic relations of negative additionality and exceptive counterfactuality - negative additionality is expressed by nor as a counterpart of and any of the adverbial pro-clauses - also, either, neither, e.g. He does not hold a regular job, nor does he take odd jobs exceptive counterfactuality
is expressed by or as an equivalent to a but the adverbial pro-clauses - otherwise, else ,e.g. I was busy, or I would have joined you. The phenomenon of copy-cleft sentences with pro-clauses illustrates the language capacity for conflation and carrying substitution relationship, particularly. The set of copy-clef sentences without explicit representation of a cross-event relation is build around structures consisting of a finite clause which represents a
Ground-event, followed by a coordinating conjunction and a finite clause representing a Figure-event e.g. She stopped at the store, and she went home. L.Talmy interprets these structures as copy-cleft sentences in which a cross-event relation is structurally implicit, but is unspecified. Compare She stopped at the store, and she went home She went home but and first she had stopped at the store.
Further concern of the discussed sentence types is their ability to represent a particular type of cross-event relation. For example, complex sentences with subordinating conjunction can not be used for representation of the relations of cause , additionality , substitution . To sum it all up L. Talmy groups syntactic structures, which represent cross-event relations, according to their formal properties which reflect conceptual-syntactic regularities.
The classification is based on the principle of Figure and Ground events representation. The Figure-Ground model of event conceptualization is universal it works as a general principle of producing different types of sentences. The Figure event is represented in the main clause of a complex sentence, and in the second constituent of a copy-cleft sentence. The Ground event is represented in the subordinate clause of a complex sentence,
in a copy-cleft sentence it appears as the initial clause, and additionally within the second constituent of the sentence. For details see Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. 2000 . One more sentence typology, proposed within a cognitive approach, has been introduced by J.R. Taylor. He has classed all the sentences into single clauses and constructions which are built as combinations of clauses. The main criterion for further division becomes the degree of integration
between clauses. The merit of this classification is that it is based on correlation between formal syntactic properties of the sentences and processes of conceptual operations basically, conceptual integration which enable the creation of sentences. The notion clause is understood by J.R. Taylor as a syntactic structure which designates a single process and should be distinguished from clause fusion - a case of clause combination, based on conceptual and syntactic integration, though
both the structures reveal the syntax of the simple sentence . Compare These cars are expensive. These cars are expensive to repair. The clause fusion construction can be unpacked into two independent clauses, designating two different processes. J.R. Taylor starts with c l a u s e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n. The basic parameters of this classification are the structural and semantic characteristics of clauses,
such as, the number of participants, the semantic role of the participants and their syntactic expression, kinds of situations processes that clauses designate, i.e. concepts event types represented by different kind of clauses. According to the process type event type clauses are classed into those which designate -dynamic processes, e.g. The house collapsed. The telephone rang stative processes e.g. The book is 200 pages long. The book is boring. The road follows the river cognitive processes mental
and perceptual processes , e.g. I watched the film. The noise frightened me. Im afraid of the dark. -complex processes processes which are made up of 2 or more component processes , e.g. Jane returned the book to the library. I broke the vase. The analysis of complex processes in terms of component processes is justified in that it is sometimes possible to focus on just one component in contrast to the process in its totality,
e.g. I almost broke the vase. They didnt elect Joe president. According to the number of participants clauses are classed into one-participant clauses Intransitives , two-participant clauses Transitives , three-participant clauses Double-object clauses . J.R. Taylor addresses the semantic roles of participants and their syntactic expression in the clause. One -participant clause intransitive presents a situation as involving only
one participant, which is an Experiencer, Mover or Patient. There are three types of intransitives unergatives, e.g. The child slept unaccusatives, e.g. The building collapsed middles, e.g. The car drives smoothly. The poem doesnt translate. I dont photograph very well. Two- participant clause transitive prototypically involves the transfer
of energy from an Agent the subject to a Patient the object , e.g. The farmer shot the rabbit. The prototypical transitive clause can also be made passive, e.g. The rabbit was shot by the farmer. A remarkable fact about the schema for a prototypical transitive clause is that it accommodates all manner of relations between entities. The following examples exhibit this fact, though exhibiting fewer and fewer characteristics of a transitive
interaction, e.g. I remember the event. My car burst a tyre. The road follows the river. Joe resembles his grandfather. The non-prototypical status of these transitives is proven by the fact that they cannot be made passive. Three-participant clause double-object clause is a clause where a second post-verbal object is obligatory, its presence determines the existence of the clause as such, e.g.
Ill mail you the report. Ill bake you a cake. The three participants are the Agent, the thing that undergoes changes at the hands of the Agent, and the person which benefits from the change Beneficiary . Characteristic of this clause type is that the Beneficiary is construed as the Patient of the interaction and it appears immediately after the verb,
as the verbs object it means that my action directly affects you , in that you come to receive the report . The clause profiles the relation between the Agent and Beneficiary by means of placing the Beneficiary immediately after the verb. The sentence renders the idea of possessivity . The same situation can be conceptualized in an alternative way, e.g. Ill mail the report to you. Ill bake a cake for you.
The clause bears the intermediary status between the prototypical two-participant clause and prototypical three-participant clause. It profiles the relation between the Agent and Patient. The sentence renders the idea of path . In the end it should be noted that different types of processes event concepts appear to be packed into two basic syntactic configurations transitive and intransitive constructions.
It becomes possible due to the fact that the subject and object can instantiate not only their prototypical use, the Agent and Patient, but also other semantic roles. This mechanism is the basis of alternative conceptualizations imagery of situations of the real world in syntactic forms. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of larger syntactic units - c l a u s e c o m b i n a t i o n s c l a u s e c o m p l e x e s - is based on the criterion of the degree of integration
between clauses J.R. Taylor distinguishes minimal integration, coordination, subordination, complementation, clause fusion which reveals the highest degree of integration. Clause complexes of minimal integration. Two clauses are simply juxtaposed, with no overt linking, e.g. I came, I saw, I conquered. The clauses are in sequential relation to each other - the first mentioned was the first to occur. Clause complexes of coordination.
Each clause could in principle stand alone as an independent conceptualization. The clauses are linked by means of words such as and, but, or, e.g. She prefers fish, and but I prefer pasta. A slightly higher degree of integration is possible if both clauses share the same subject, e.g. I went up to him and asked the way. Clause complexes of subordination. Here, there are two clauses, but one is understood in terms of a
particular semantic relation temporal, causal, etc. to each other. Typical subordinators are after, if, whenever, although. Clause complexes based on complementation. Complementation represents a closer integration of clauses, in that one clause functions as a participant in another. There are different syntactic forms that a complement clause can take.
A complement clause functions as the subject or the object of the main verb. The complement clause may appear as - an infinitive without to, e.g. I saw them break into the house - to -infinitive, e.g. To finish it in time was impossible. I advise you to wait a while. I want to go there myself - ing -form of the verb, e.g.
I avoided meeting them. I cant imagine him saying that - subordinate clause, introduced by that or question words e.g. I hope that we will see each other again soon, I wonder what we should do. Clause fusions represent the highest degree of integration. It occurs when two clauses fuse into a single clause, e.g. These cars are expensive to repair. One could unpack this sentence into two independent clauses, designating
two different processes someone repairing the cars and this process is expensive . In the example the two clausal conceptions have fused into one. We characterize the cars as expensive with respect to a certain process. For details see Taylor J.R. Cognitive Grammar. 2002 Further Readings on English Syntax this book, pp. 57-60 .
Summing it all up, it is necessary to mention that sentence classifications proposed by different linguists within a cognitive approach are aimed at grouping sentences on the basis of their formal properties in relation to the concepts they represent as well as the conceptual mechanisms which enable the creation of different types of sentences cognitive functions of Figure and Ground in L.Talmys conception or operations of conceptual integration in
J.R. Taylors typology . It is evident that such like classifications bear the status of more unified theories of sentences compared to the classifications introduced within the traditional approaches to syntax. Traditional syntax profiles the formal characteristics of syntactic units which results in the strict division the simple sentence, the composite sentence the complex and the compound sentences . Sentence classifications proposed within a cognitive approach profile the concepts represented by syntactic
constructions, conceptual mechanisms which determine the production of different types of sentence and which in the most general sense reflect the basic conceptualization processes. Cognitive classifications, by their nature, are more likely to show that the distinctive features of sentence types form a continuum rather than discreet categories which reflect the work of human mind. L E C T U R E 9. TEXT AS AN OBJECT OF SYNTACTIC STUDY
I. The inter-sentence connections in the text. II. The textual linguistics history of the textual linguistics, categories of textuality. I. The inter-sentence connections in the text. Inter-sentence connections have come under linguistic investigation but recently. The highest lingual unit which was approached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic study was the sentence. However , further studies in this field have shown that
sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation, they are interconnected both semantically and syntactically. The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian linguists N.S. Pospelov and L.A. Bulakhovsky. N.S. Pospelov called the unit in question a complex syntactic unity , L.A. Bulakhovsky termed it a super-phrasal unity .
M.Y. Bloch suggested the term the supra-sentential construction . In the course of study it has been stated that sentences in speech come under broad grammatical arrangements and combine with each other on strictly syntactic lines in the formation of the text. The general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text provides its two distinguishing features semantic topical unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion.
Semantic unity implies that a text as a succession of sentences centers on a common informative purpose. Semantico-syntactic cohesion interprets the sentences in a succession as syntactically relevant. Sentences in a sequence can be connected either prospectively or retrospectively. Prospective connection is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to one that is to follow it. A prospective connector signals a continuation of speech the sentence containing it
is semantically incomplete, e.g. And now let us switch onto the next topic. The environmental protection. Retrospective connection is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to the one that precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective connection is the basic type sentence connection in ordinary speech, e.g. The man hit the ball. The crowd cheered him on. On the basis of the functional nature of connectors,
sentence connection can be of two types conjunctive and correlative. Conjunctive connection is effected by conjunction-like connectors regular conjunctions coordinative and subordinative and adverbial or parenthetical sentence-connectors then, yet, however, consequently, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless . Conjunctive connection can be only retrospective, e.g. Carter was upset and angry. But remained firm. The president emotionally declared that he was glad
to be home . Then he told the gathering what it had come to hear. Correlative connection is effected by a pair of elements one of which refers to the other, used in the foregoing sentence. By means of this reference the sentences in a succession are related to each other. Correlative connection can be both retrospective and prospective. Correlative connection is divided into substitutional and representative.
Substitutional connection is based on the use of substitutes, e.g. There was an old woman who lived in a shoe. She had so many children, she didnt know what to do. childrens rhyme . A substitute may have as its antecedent the whole of the preceding sentence or a clausal part of it. Substitutes often go together with conjunctions, effecting the mixed type of connection, e.g. As I saw them I thought that they seemed prosperous.
But it may have been all the same just an illusion. Representative connection is based on representative elements which refer to one another without the factor of replacement, e.g. Soon he went home. None regretted his departure. Representative correlation is achieved also by repetition e.g. He has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much.
Thinks too much. Such men are dangerous. M.Y. Bloch investigates the two important border-line phenomena between the sentence and the sentential sequence. The first is known as parcellation . The parcellated construction presents two or more collocations separated by a sentence-tone in writing they are delimited by a full stop but related to one another as parts of one and the same sentence, e.g. I realized his horse was the first to come. Again.
I thought I was finished. The second of the border-line phenomena in question is the opposite of parcellation and may be called fusion. It consists in forcing two different sentences into one, e.g. She said that she was very glad to meet him and would he please join her company. II. The textual linguistics. When modern linguistics began to emerge, it was customary to limit investigation to the framework of the sentence as the largest unit with an inherent structure
L. Bloomfield . All the other structures, as different from the sentence, were assigned to the field of stylistics. The reason for this lies with the fact that it is much more straightforward to decide what constitutes a grammatical or acceptable sentence than what constitutes a grammatical or acceptable sentence sequence, paragraph or text, as the text formation is characterized by lesser conformity with established rules. Teun van Dirk stresses that text linguistics is in fact a designation for any linguistic
investigation devoted to the text as the primary object of inquiry. There is a number of disciplines which, for various motives, share many concerns with a science of texts rhetoric, stylistics, anthropology, discourse analysis. For example, anthropology scrutinizes texts as cultural artifacts B. Malinovsky Special attention was devoted to myths and folktales
C. Levi-Strauss . Discourse analysis the study of conversation brings into focus the mechanisms which combine texts as single contributions into a set of relevant texts directed to each other, reveal the standards of textuality cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, situationality, intertextuality, informativity M. Coulthard . In the field of linguistics proper, i.e. philology, the text was generally considered a marginal entity until it became hard to ignore any longer.
Thus, comparing word order in ancient and modern languages H. Weil detected another principle besides grammar the relations of thoughts to each other evidently affect the arrangement of words in sentences. His investigations were renewed by Czech linguists Prague School under the notion of functional sentence perspective. The first large-scale inquiry into text organization was performed by
R. Harweg 1968 within the descriptive structural approach. R. Harweg postulated that texts are hold together by the mechanism of substitution one expression following up another one of the same sense and thus forming a cohesive or coherent relationship . His notion of substitution is extraordinary broad and complex, subsuming relationships such as synonymy, class instance, subclass superclass, cause effect, part whole.
The main tendencies of the text studies within the structural approach are as follows the text was defined as a unit larger than the sentence K. Pike , research proceeded by discovering types of text structures and classifying them in some sort of scheme. The transformational generative grammar approach combined with the basic principles of cognitive psychology provides a process-oriented model of the text, i.e. the model of text generating
T.A. van Dirk, I. Melcuk, A. Zolkovskiy . T.A. van Dirk introduced the notion of macrostructure a statement of the content of a text, and reasoned that the generating of a text must begin with a main idea which gradually evolves into the detailed meanings that enter sentences with the help of literary operations . When a text is presented, there must be operations which work in the other direction to extract the
main idea back out again. Thus, the main concern of T.A. van Dirks study is to describe cognitive processes that can render texts literary . A different line has been adopted in the work of I. Melcuk. He argues that the central operation of a text model should be the transition between meaning and text, i.e. how meaning is expressed in a text or abstracted out of a text, which is possible due
to the speakers hearers ability to express identify one and the same idea in a number of synonymous utterances. Thus, I. Melcuk adopts the text model as that one of meaning representation in cognitive continuity. All the discussed trends of the text study illustrate the evolution in theory and method of text linguistics. The main target of the text linguistics of the present day is to describe various text types used in discourse, explain both the shared features and the distinctions among texts of different
types, i.e. to find out what standards texts must fulfill, how they might be produced or received. In modern text linguistics a text is defined as a communicative occurrence which meets particular standards categories of textuality. If any of these standards is not considered to have been satisfied, the text will not be communicative R.Beaugrande, W. Dressler . Different scholars point out various parameters of the text
Ts.Todorov -verbal, syntactic, semantic N.E. Enkvist -topic, focus, linkage I.R.Galperin - informative contents, cohesion, prospection, retrospection, modality, integrity, completeness R. Beaugrande and W. Dressler - cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, intertextuality. Cohesion and coherence are the most obvious categories of textuality. They indicate how the component elements of the text fit together and make sense.
Cohesion concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text , i.e. the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence. The surface components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and conventions, such that cohesion rests upon grammatical dependencies. The notion of cohesion includes all the functions which can be used to signal relations among surface elements, e.g. the road sign slow children at play which is more likely to be read as slow and children
at play , cannot be rearranged into Children play slow at. Coherence concerns the ways in which the semantic components of the text, i.e. the concepts and relations which underlie the surface text are mutually accessible and relevant. For example, in children at play , children is an object concept, play - an action concept, and the relation - agent of , because the children are the agents of the action.
Coherence can be illustrated by a group of relations of causality, such as cause, reason, purpose, enablement one action is sufficient, but not necessary for the other, as in The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts, all on a summer day. The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts, and took them quite away . These relations concern the ways in which one situation or event affects the conditions for some other
one. Coherence is not a mere feature of texts, but rather the outcome of cognitive processes among text users. Coherence already illustrates the nature of texts as human activities. A text does not make sense by itself, but rather by the interaction of text-presented knowledge with peoples stored knowledge of the world. It follows that text linguistics must co-operate with cognitive psychology to explore such a basic matter as the sense of a text.
Cohesion and coherence are text-centered notions, designating operations directed at the text materials. There are also user-centered notions which are brought to bear on the activity of textual communication at large, both by producers and receivers. They are intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, intertextuality. Intentionality is the category of textuality which concerns the text producers attitude to constituting a coherent and cohesive text to fulfill the producers intentions.
Acceptability as a category of textuality concerns the text receivers attitude that the text should have some use of relevance for the receiver. This attitude is responsive to such factors as text type, social or cultural setting. Receivers can support coherence by making their own contributions to the sense of the text, which is provided by the operation of inference операция инференции, т.е. получения выводного знания . Text producers often speculate on the receivers attitude of acceptability and present
texts that require important contributions in order to make sense. For example, the bell telephone company warns people Call us before you dig. You may not be able to afterwards. People are left to infer the information on their own, which is Call us before you dig. There might be an underground cable.
If you break the cable, you wont have phone service, and you may get a severe electric shock. Then you wont be able to call us. Informativity as a category of textuality concerns the extent to which the presented texts are expected unexpected or known unknown. The texts which need inference, i.e. are implicit to a certain degree, are considered to be more informative than those which are more explicit see the example above .
Situationality concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrence. Thus, the road sign slow children at play can be treated in different ways, but the most probable intended use is obvious. The ease with which people can decide such an issue is due to the influence of the situation where the text is presented. Situationality even affects the means of cohesion. On the one hand, a more explicit text version, such as
Motorists should proceed slowly, because children are playing in the vicinity and might run out into the street. Vehicles can stop more readily if they are moving slowly. would remove every possible doubt about the sense. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate to a situation where receivers have only limited time and attention to devote to signs among other moving traffic. That forces the text producer toward a maximum of economy situationality works so strongly that the
minimal version is more appropriate than the clearer. Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent on knowledge of one or previously encountered texts. Intertextuality is responsible for the evolution of text types as classes of texts with typical patterns of characteristics. Within a particular type, reliance on intertextuality may be more or less prominent.
In types like parodies, critical reviews, the text producer must consult the prior text continually, and text receivers will usually need come familiarity with the latter. There was an advertisement in magazines showing a petulant young man saying to someone outside the picture As long as youre up, get me a Grants. A professor working on a research project cut the text out of a magazine , altered it slightly, and displayed it on his office door as
As long as youre up, get me a Grant. In the original setting it was a request to be given a beverage of a particular brand. In the new setting it seems to be pointless unless the text receiver has the knowledge of the originally presented text and its intention. To sum it all up, the discussed categories standards of textuality function as constitutive principles of textual communication, they create and define the form of behavior identifiable as textual communicating.
There are also regulative principles that control textual communication rather than define it they are efficiency of a text, effectiveness of a text and appropriateness of a text . The problem of interaction of the said principles i.e. how the constitution and use of texts are controlled by the regulative principles is studied within the framework of cognitive linguistics. F U R T H E R R E A D I N G S O N E N G L I S H S
Y N T A X C O G N I T I V E A P P R O A C H 1. ON SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS FROM COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BY J.R. TAYLOR J.R. Taylor views the syntagmatic relations in the light of conceptual combination. It means that he proposes the analysis of syntactic units in terms of mechanisms whereby semantic units combine with each other. The target of J.R. Taylors analysis is to introduce generalized schemas which
reflect conceptual processing that enables creation interpretation of syntactic units, and group syntactic structures as mapped onto these schemas. J.R. Taylor introduces the notion constructional schema . A constructional schema abstracts what is common to phrases of different kind. Here we may start with the analysis of the expressions which share the same constituent order the level of syntax . For example, on the one hand, the assembly of prepositional phrases with the structure
Prep Noun phrase - on the table, on the mat, above the sofa, under the bed, etc on the other hand, the assembly of verb phrases with the structure V Noun phrase - leave the office, drive the car, push the cart and countless more. We could go further, and propose a constructional schema that covers both the prepositional and verb phrases conceptual level . In this case a constructional schema shows what these two types of phrases have in common at the semantic level they are headed by the relational unit preposition
and verb - the head of the expression, which is elaborated by a nominal expression - the complement of the expression. Here we have a head-complement constructional schema, one of the four types of constructional schemas, proposed by J.R. Taylor. Constructional schemas have two principal functions. First, they have a sanctioning function. They allow expressions which are constructed in conformity with the schemas to be rapidly categorized and interpreted.
Secondly, the schemas have an enabling function. They facilitate the rapid creation of an indefinite number of new expressions in conformity with the schemas. While investigating the mechanisms of conceptual combination J.R. Taylor uses notions profile , base , domain - the basic notions in Cognitive Grammar analysis of meaning. P r o f i l e, b a s e, d o m a i n
The profile and base constitute the concept. The semantic value of any linguistic expression resides in the combination of profile and base. The profile picks out one aspect of the base and renders it particularly prominent. The concept consists in knowledge of the profile against the appropriate base. Consider the concept father. The word father profiles an adult male human and invokes, as its base, the notion of a relation between a profiled individual and one more individual who counts as the fathers
offspring. It is axiomatic in Cognitive Grammar that all linguistic expressions profile something or other. A clause profiles a situation or event, a verb profiles a process, a preposition profiles a kind of relation. If the base of an expression is the conceptual content that is inherently invoked by the expression, the domain is a more generalized background knowledge against which conceptualization is achieved. In the father example more general notions, such as kinship, genealogy, gender constitute
domains against which a whole cluster of concepts are characterized father, son, aunt, cousin, etc. The distinction between base and domain, though not always clear-cut, does have linguistic manifestation. Consider the expressions with preposition of and the verb have, which profile an intrinsic relation between entities. Since the base is intrinsic to a concept, it is not surprising that of and have can express the relation between the profiled entity and the base.
On the other hand, the relation between the profiled entity and a domain is a more distant relation, and of and have are often inappropriate in such cases. Compare the thumb of my left hand normal and the thumb of my left arm odd A hand has five fingers normal and An arm has five fingers. Thus, the instances of the linguistic level and rules of combinability of linguistic units are determined
and somehow restricted by the hierarchy within the conceptual content. C o n c e p t u a l c o m b i n a t i o n a n d s y n t a g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s In J.R. Taylors opinion there are 4 types of constructional schemas, according to the type of conceptual combination and therefore syntagmatic relation constructional schemas with head-complement relation, schemas with head-modifier relation, schemas of appositional relation, schemas with parataxis.
Accordingly there are 4 mechanisms for combining simpler units into more complex structures complementation, modification, apposition, parataxis. H e a d - c o m p l e m e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s Head-compliment construction reveals head-complement relation. It means that its constituents bear the status of head and that of complement. Consider the example on the table. The preposition on in this expression designates spatial relation,
that one of support and contact, and determines the profile of the complex concept on the table . It means that the semantics of the expression is relational in character, the table helps to specify on, which is initially rather abstract or schematic, as compared to the table. The polysemous on needs specification, which is achieved in the combination on the table. Both on and on the table designate the same relation, but with different degrees of specificity.
On in the given expression is the head and the table is the complement. The head designates the same entity as the whole expression does, the expression bears the profile of the head. The complement elaborates an entity already present in the semantic structure of the head. The head is conceptually more dependent, it needs elaboration, the complement is more autonomous. H e a d - m o d i f i e r c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s
Head-modifier construction reveals head-modifier relation. Consider the example the book on the table. The expression no longer profiles a relation , but a thing, namely, the book. In this case the expression bears the profile of the book, which is the head of the phrase, and on the table is a modifier. The modifier provides additional conceptual substance to the head. The head in this case is conceptually more autonomous, the modifier is more dependent.
Head and complement stand in a closer semantic relation to each other than head and modifier. It comes from the fact that in a head-complement construction the complement is part of the expressions profile the complement is intrinsic to the profile. In a head-modifier construction the modifier is not part of the profile the modifier is in a sense an optional extra. Consider more examples Joe left the office.
Leave profiles a temporal relation. Leave combines with the office, which inherits the profile of leave. Leave the office combines with Joe, but the resultant expression again inherits the relational profile of leave the office. The expression designates an event of leaving, it does not designate Joe. The head of the expression is left, both the subject Joe and the direct object the office are complements.
The proof that Joe also has the status of a complement is the alternative constituency - Joe left the office which is actualized in the following Joe left, but everyone else entered, the office. The complements elaborate the schematic elements in the semantic structure of the verb an entity capable of motion - Joe, a schematic container - the office .In this respect the analysis of conceptual constituents conceptual
combination , as head complement or head modifier, correlates with the traditional analysis of obligatory and optional valency of the verb subject and the direct object realize the obligatory valency of the verb . Consider more examples Father of twins. On the one hand, father the head , like book in the expression book on the table, elaborates the semantic structure of of twins. Of twins is therefore a modifier of father. On the other hand, father, unlike book, is a relational
noun a father has to be the father of someone, whereas a book does not to be a book in a certain location. Of twins elaborates the semantic structure of father and for this reason takes on features of a complement. Thus, of twins exhibits features of both a modifier and a complement of father. Cognitive Grammar does not take the head-complement and the head-modifier relations to be mutually exclusive, we can simply say that the expression simultaneously satisfies the requirements of two different
constructional schemas. A p p o s i t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s In an appositional relation, each component designates one and the same entity, but does it in different ways. They combine to form a more elaborate conception of the entity. In the expression my neighbour, the butcher one and the same person characterized as my neighbour and also as the butcher . The person is characterized in terms of a relation to the speaker and in terms
of his profession. Consider more examples Now, at midnight We were amazed, stunned, by the event. Tomorrow, Tuesday He ran - absolutely raced - up the hill. We, the people They sent him to Coventry, refused to speak to him. In an appositional relation each of the components profiles one and the same entity.
It is as if an apposition has two heads, each component contributes its profile to the expression. There are cases which exhibit, for example, both apposition and modification as in the expression you, the butcher the butcher can be viewed as a modifier, as it gives additional information , or apposition and complementation as in The fact that the earth is flat must be obvious to everyone that the earth is flat can be viewed as the complement of fact, as it is schematically present in the semantic structure
of fact a fact is necessarily a fact that something is the case . Consider more examples The question what to do is still unanswered. The question of what to do is still unanswered. The question as to what to do is still unanswered. Some syntactic phenomena need to be understood in terms of the apposition relation. For example, one of the semantic values of of. Consider the crime of shoplifting.
One and the same entity is characterized, first, as a crime, and secondly, as shoplifting. Crime has a rather schematic profile, shoplifting is more fully specified. By virtue of apposition the crime is elaborated as shoplifting and shoplifting is categorized as a crime . Consider more examples the Island of Madeira the thought of going there alone the State of California the question of where to go a feeling of despair the fact of his absence
A similar situation holds in the following cases, where the first constituent is a so-called epithet. Consider a beast of a problem. The epithet has a highly schematic profile, with speaker attitude towards the profiled entity very prominent in the base. The second constituent elaborates the epithets profile. Consider more examples an angel of a girl that bastard of a man P a r a t a x i s c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s
Parataxis relation can be viewed in linguistic expressions which are simply lined up, one after the other, with no conceptual integration. Clauses and sentences in the text can be lined up in this way. Consider I came, I saw, I conquered . The speaker could have chosen to overtly mark the relations between the clauses, by means of linking elements such as then and finally. Without these overt connectors, the relations between the clauses have to be inferred by the hearer.
2. ON SENTENCE TYPOLOGY CLAUSE TYPES AND CLAUSE STRUCTURE FROM COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BY J.R. TAYLOR J.R. Taylor proposes the sentence typology all the sentences can be classed into single clauses and constructions which are built as combinations of clauses. The main criterion for further division becomes the degree of integration between clauses. The merit of this classification is that it is based on correlation between formal syntactic properties
of the sentences and processes of conceptual operations basically, conceptual integration which enable the creation of the sentences. The classification is also aimed to show that the distinctions between clause types form a continuum rather than discreet categories, which somehow reflects the work of the human mind. The notion clause is understood as a syntactic structure which designates a single process and should be distinguished from clause fusion - a case of clause combination, based on conceptual and
syntactic integration, though both the structures reveal the syntax of the simple sentence . Compare These cars are expensive. These cars are expensive to repair. The clause fusion construction can be unpacked into two independent clauses, designating two different processes. C l a u s e s, c l a u s e s t r u c t u r e J.R. Taylor defines the clause as a linguistic structure that designates a process, created through
the elaboration of the participants in a temporal relation. He observes the internal structure of the clause - its participants, the semantic role of the participants, and their syntactic expression, in relation to the kinds of situations processes that clauses designate. The said properties are the basic parameters of clause classification. According to the process type clauses are classed into those which designate - dynamic processes processes
in which something happens, they are change-of-state processes 1-3 and energy input processes 4-5 , e.g. 1.The house collapsed. 2. The farmer shot the rabbit. 3. I gave Peter the book. 4. The telephone rang. 5. The light flashed stative processes there is neither energy input, nor change a situation simply exists, where certain properties are attributed to an entity 6-7 , the disposition of one entity with respect
to the other is stated 8-9 , an entity is identified 10-11 , e.g. 6. The book is 200 pages long. 7.The book is boring. 8. The road follows the river. 9. The picture hangs above the sofa. 10. The cat is the one that stole the liver. 11. The photographer was Beryl cognitive processes mental and perceptual processes, which can be described in terms of dynamic
cognitive processes 12-13 and stative cognitive processes 14-15 , e.g. 12. I watched the film. 13. The noise frightened me. 14. I liked the film. 15. Im afraid of the dark. -complex processes processes which are made up of 2 or more component processes , e.g. 16. Jane returned the book to the library. 17. They elected him president. 18. I broke the vase.
The analysis of complex processes in terms of component processes is justified in that it is sometimes possible to focus on just one component in contrast to the process in its totality, e.g. 19. I almost broke the vase. 20. They didnt elect Joe president. According to the number of participants clauses are classed into one-participant clauses Intransitives , two-participant clauses Transitives , three-participant clauses
Double-object clauses . J.R. Taylor addresses the semantic roles of participants and their semantic expression in the clause. The question under discussion is how a participant with a certain semantic role Agent, Patient, etc is mapped in to the syntax, that is into particular grammatical relation subject, direct object, etc Among the semantic roles of the participants J.R. Taylor distinguishes Agent, Instrument dynamic processes
Mover - an entity which changes its location, e.g. The guests departed dynamic processes , Patient - an entity which is affected by the process designated by the verb the entity may undergo a change in state, it may occupy a new location, it can change ownership, etc, e.g. John opened the door, The child put her toys away, The building collapsed dynamic processes , Locatives -
Place, Source, Goal, Path, e.g. In the study Place , I moved the books from the table Source , I put my affairs in order Goal dynamic or stative processes , Experiencer - an animate entity which is the locus of a cognitive activity or a cognitive state, e.g. I know, I itch, I heard the noise cognitive processes , Stimulus - an entity which causes a cognitive activity or state
in the Experiencer, e.g. I heard the noise, The noise startled me cognitive processes , Zero - a participant which merely exists or exhibits a property, but does not interact with another entity, e.g. Alice is asleep, The book costs 50 pounds stative processes . One -participant clause intransitive presents a situation as involving only one participant, which is an Experiencer or Zero, a Mover and Patient. There are three types of intransitives unergatives a
, unaccusatives b , middles c a The telephone rang. The child slept b The guests departed. The building collapsed c The book sold well. The car drives smoothly. The ice-cream scoops out easily. The poem doesnt translate. The food wont keep. The dirt brushes off easily. I dont photograph very well. In a the subject exhibits the role of
Zero or Experiencer the child , in b the subject is a Mover, in c the subject is a Patient-like entity. Two- participant clause transitive prototypically involves the transfer of energy from an Agent the subject to a Patient the object , e.g. The farmer shot the rabbit. The prototypical transitive clause can also be made passive, e.g.
The rabbit was shot by the farmer. A remarkable fact about the schema for a prototypical transitive clause is that it accommodates all manner of relations between entities. The following examples exhibit this fact, though exhibiting fewer and fewer characteristics of a transitive interaction I remember the event. My car burst a tyre. The road follows the river. Joe resembles his grandfather.
The road crosses the railway line. The examples also illustrate a point that the subject can instantiate all manner of participant roles, in addition to its prototypical use to designate an Agent. What unifies the subject is its function - to designate the more prominent entity in the conceptualization. Three-participant clause double-object clause is a clause where a second post-verbal object is obligatory, its presence determines the existence of the clause as such, e.g.
Ill mail you the report. Ill bake you a cake. The three participants are the Agent, the thing that undergoes changes at the hands of the Agent, and the person which benefits from the change Beneficiary . Characteristic of this clause type is that the Beneficiary is construed as the Patient of the interaction and it appears immediately after the verb,
as the verbs object it means that my action directly affects you , in that you come to receive the report . In the clause we have the two objects, the syntax doesnt allow to omit the intermediate element Patient in the action chain Agent- Patient- Beneficiary while profiling the relation between the initial and final elements Agent and Beneficiary by means of placing the Beneficiary immediately after the verb. In this respect the syntax bears the restrictions imposed by
the action chain hierarchy - our mind permits this kind of profile of the situation but cant leave out the essential, the real patient. Otherwise the object you appears as the real patient, which invokes a different situation type. The same situation can be conceptualized in an alternative way, e.g. Ill mail the report to you. Ill bake a cake for you. Here the Patient is the thing that undergoes changes due to the action of the
Agent. The Beneficiary appears in the prepositional phrase, which is often optional, e.g. Ill mail the report - is acceptable. Thus, this construction cant be viewed as a prototypical double-object clause because, strictly speaking, it illustrates a two-participant interaction, profiling the relation between the initial and intermediate elements of the action chain and leaving out the final element. This type of clause, probably, takes the intermediate position between prototypical two-participant
clauses prototypical transitive constructions and prototypical three-participant clauses, due to the double interpretation of you , i.e. either as a Path Goal or Benificiary, accordingly. The existence of the two constructions for description of the same situation illustrates a point that the object can instantiate not only the Patient, its prototypical use, but also some other semantic roles.
C l a u s e c o m b i n a t i o n, i n t e g r a t i o n o f c l a u s e s There are several ways of combining clauses into larger units. The criterion which is used for classification of clause combinations is the degree of integration between clauses. J.R. Taylor distinguishes minimal integration, coordination, subordination, complementation, clause fusion which reveals the highest degree of integration.
Minimal integration. Two clauses are simply juxtaposed, with no overt linking, e.g. I came, I saw, I conquered. The clauses are in sequential relation to each other - the first mentioned was the first to occur. Coordination. Each clause could in principle stand alone as an independent conceptualization. The clauses are linked by means of words such as and, but, or, e.g. She prefers fish, and but I prefer pasta. A slightly higher degree of integration is possible if both
clauses share the same subject, e.g. I went up to him and asked the way. Subordination. Here, there are two clauses, but one is understood in terms of a relation temporal, causal, etc to each other. Typical subordinators are after, if, whenever, although. Complementation represents a closer integration of clauses, in that one clause functions as a participant in another. There are different syntactic forms that a complement clause can take.
A complement clause functions as the subject or the object of the main verb. The complement clause may appear as - an infinitive without to, e.g. I saw them break into the house - to -infinitive, e.g. To finish it in time was impossible. I advise you to wait a while. I want to go there myself - ing -form of the verb, e.g.
I avoided meeting them. I cant imagine him saying that - subordinate clause, introduced by that or question words e.g. I hope that we will see each other again soon, I wonder what we should do. The highest degree of integration clause fusion occurs when two clauses fuse into a single clause, e.g. These cars are expensive to repair. One could unpack this sentence into two independent clauses, designating two different processes someone
repairing the cars and this process is expensive . In the example the two clausal conceptions have fused into one. We characterize the cars as expensive with respect to a certain process. 3. SEMANTICS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS FROM CONSTRUCTIONS BY A.GOLDBERG A.Goldberg argues that constructions are conventionalized pieces of grammatical knowledge
and they exist independently of the particular lexical items which instantiate them. The constructions brought under her observation are ditransitive construction, caused-motion construction, resultative construction, way construction. Constructional meanings can be generally captured by skeletal structures, e.g. X causes Y to receive Z , X causes Y to move Z . Constructions are associated with a family of closely related senses, i.e. the same form
is paired with different but related senses. A. Goldberg makes proposals for how to relate verb and construction and for constraints on that relation. To capture the semantic constraints on constructions A. Goldberg brings into focus the analysis of the systemic metaphors which play a significant role in the semantics of constructions. D i t r a n s i t i v e
C o n s t r u c t i o n The central sense of the construction is argued to involve transfer between a volitional agent and a willing recipient the actual successful transfer Subject Agent - Predicate Cause-Receive - Object 1 Recipient - Object 2 Patient , e.g. Joe loaned Bob a lot of money. The metaphorical extension of the semantic structure of the
Ditransitive Construction is based on the systemic metaphors and includes the following senses causal events as transfers e.g. The rain brought us some time. The music lent the party a festive relief. communication as reception , communication is understood as traveling across from the stimulus to the listener, e.g. She told Jo a fairy tale. She wired Jo a message. perception as reception , perceptions are understood
as entities which move toward the perceiver e.g. He showed Bob the view. actions as reception entities , which are understood as intentionally directed at another person and transferred to that person, e.g. She blew him a kiss. She gave him a wink. facts and assumptions as objects which are given e.g. Ill give you that assumption. Semantic constraints which license the use of verb in the construction
concern the semantic roles of agent and recipient. Constraint on the Agent the referent designated by the subject must be a volitional agent. The agent may also reveal no volitionality, e.g. in the cases when causal events are construed as transfers due to a conventional systemic metaphor. The metaphor licenses more abstract senses into semantics of the Ditransitive Construction. Mary accidentally murdered
Jane. She gave me the flue. Here the effect of the causal event is construed as an object which is transferred. The given examples imply that the subject is the cause of the first object being affected in some way by receiving the second object The rain brought us some time The rain cause - as agent , us affected entity - as recipient , some time effect - as patient . Constraint on the Recipient the referent designated by the first object must be a willing recipient,
i.e. willing to accept or potentially able to accept the transferred object in order for transfer to be successful, e.g. Bill gave Chris a headache. In this aspect the sentences Bill told Mary a story, but she wasnt listening. and Bill threw the coma victim a blanket. are impossible. The prototypical willing recipient is an animate being.
The rest cases are viewed as metaphorical extension, e.g. The paint job gave the car a higher sale price. The semantic constraints relate verb and construction and are true for the central sense of the Ditransitive Construction the actual successful transfer , the other, non-prototypical senses are viewed as extensions from the basic sense as licensed by the systemic metaphors.
C a u s e d - M o t i o n C o n s t r u c t i o n The Caused-Motion Construction is defined structurally as Subject - Predicate nonstative verb - Object - Obl directional phrase . The semantics of the construction is argued to involve the causer that directly causes the theme to move along a path designated by the directional phrase
Subject Cause - Predicate Cause-Move - Object Theme - Obl Goal , e.g. They laughed the poor guy out of the room. They sprayed the paint onto the wall. The construction is associated with a category of related senses A. X causes Y to move Z Frank pushed it into the box. B. X causes Y to move Z verbs encode a communicative act
Sam asked ordered, invited, urged him into the room. C. X enables Y to move Z verbs encode the removal of the barrier Sam let allowed, freed, released him into the room. D. X prevents Y from moving Z is understood as imposition of the barrier, causing the patient to stay in a location despite its inherent tendency to move
Harry locked Joe into the bathroom. He kept her at arms length. D. X helps Y to move Z involves ongoing assistance to move in a certain direction Sam helped assisted, guided, showed him into the living room. The central sense of the construction is A sense. It involves manipulative causation and actual movement, which has been suggested as the most basic causative
situation. Semantic constraints are proposed to explain idiosyncrasy in pairs with relative verbs, e.g. Pat coaxed him into the room sounds correct, while Pat encouraged him into the room does not. Constraint on the Causer the causer argument can be an agent or a natural force, e.g. Chris pushed the piano up the stairs. The wind blew the ship off the course.
Constraints on Direct Causation constraints on what kind of situations causations can be encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction I. No Mediating Cognitive Decision no cognitive decision can mediate between the causing event and the entailed motion, e.g. Sam frightened coaxed, lured Bob out of the room. II. The Implication of Actual Motion if motion is not strictly entailed, it must be presumed as an implication
implication can be determined pragmatically , e.g. Sam asked invited, urged him into the room. Sam allowed permitted him into the house. III. Conventionalized Causations - causations which involve an intermediate cause, i.e. are indirect, but cognitively packaged as a single event, i.e. their internal structure is ignored, e.g. The invalid owner ran his favorite horse in the race .
The company flew her to Chicago for an interview. IV. Incidental Motion Causations incidental motion must be effected as a result of the activity causing the change of state which is performed in a conventional way or with the intention of causing the motion. It means that the path of motion may be specified and the causation may be encoded by the Caused-Motion Construction, e.g. The butcher sliced the salami onto the wax paper.
Sam shredded the papers into the garbage pail. The action performed by the agent typically implies some predictable incidental motion. V. Path of Motion the path of motion must be completely determined by the causal force. The causing event must determine the entire path of motion, even though actual physical contact is not maintained over the entire path. Which paths count as completely determined is in part a matter of pragmatics.
If the action is interpreted to be the driving force determining the particular path of motion, the motion can be said as completely determined by the action, e.g. He shoved the cart down the incline. They laughed the poor guy into his car. The semantic constraints have been proposed in an attempt to show principled patterns where there seems to be idiosyncrasy. These constraints have been argued to involve a combination of lexical semantics
and general world knowledge. R e s u l t a t i v e C o n s t r u c t i o n The Resultative Construction is argued to be a metaphorical extension of the caused-motion construction. The semantics of the construction involves the patient, that is why resultatives can only be applied to arguments which potentially undergo a change of state as a result of the action denoted by the verb. Resultatives can apply to - direct objects of some transitive verbs, e.g.
I had brushed my hair smooth. You killed it stone-dead subjects of particular intransitive verbs, e.g. The river froze solid fake objects, i.e. post-verbal arguments that do not bear the normal argument relation to the verb, e.g. She laughed herself crooked. Thus, resultative construction can be defined as Subject Agent - Predicate Cause-Become - Object Patient - Obl-adjective or prepositional phrase
Result-Goal for transitive resultatives, and Subject Patient - Predicate Become - Obl Result-Goal for intransitive resultatives. Semantic constraints are proposed to explain extensions. Animate Instigator Constraint subject in the 2-argument resultative construction must hold the role of an animate instigator and it is not necessarily an agent, since no volitionality is required, e.g.
She coughed herself sick. Inanimate instigators are also possible, e.g. The alarm clock ticked the baby awake. Instrument subjects are not possible, e.g. The hammer pounded the metal flat. Aspectual Constraint the change of state must occur simultaneously with the endpoint of the action denoted by the verb. This constraint rules out cases in which there is any time delay between the action denoted by the
verb and the subsequent change of state, e.g. He ate himself sick. implies that the agents continuous eating made him sick . End-of-Scale Constraint the endpoint must be clearly delimited. It may be on some absolute scale in this case nongradable adjectives are used or on a scale of functionality, in which case continued functioning is impossible beyond it. Most of the adjectives which can occur in the construction are nongradable.
If gradable adjectives are used they receive a nongradable interpretation, e.g. He talked himself hoarse. implies that the patient argument has gone over edge beyond the point where normal functioning is possible . The type of adjectives that occur as a resultative is fairly limited. The adjectives which occur regularly are asleep awake, open shut, flat straight smooth, free, full empty, dead alive, sick, hoarse, sober, crazy. The resultatives cannot be adjectives derived from either
present or past participles, e.g. She kicked the door opening. She kicked the door opened. The restriction has been attributed to a semantic clash of aspect. W a y C o n s t r u c t i o n The Way Construction is generally used to render literal or metaphorical motion, e.g. Frank dug his way out of the prison. The players will maul their way up the middle of the field. Their customers snorted and injected their way to oblivion.
Lord King joked and blustered his way out of trouble at the meeting. The verbs cannot be used with other than way valences Chris mauled bludgeoned into the room. The same is not true of verbs which clearly do lexically code literal or metaphorical motion, e.g. to inch and to worm - Lucky may have inched ahead of Black Stallion. He cant worm out of that station.
The Way Construction admits two interpretations means interpretation as a basic one and manner interpretation as extension means interpretation diachronically preceded the manner interpretation by several centuries . The Means Interpretation Creation of a Path This interpretation means that the path through which motion takes place is not preestablished, but rather is created by some action of the subject referent. In other words the motion must be through a literal or metaphorical self-created path, e.g.
Sally made way into the room implies that Sally moved through a crowd or other obstacles. The most common interpretation involves motion through a crowd, mass, obstacle, e.g. He pushed his way past the others. Troops have been shooting their way through angry, unarmed mobs. Another interpretation a metaphorical case involves situations in which a path may need to be created, if there are social obstacles standing in the way, e.g.
Joe bought his way into the exclusive country club. The semantics of the construction involves both the creation of a path and movement along that path and can be defined as Subject Creator-Theme - Predicate Create-Move - Object way Createe-Way - Obl Path . The means interpretation of the construction always entails that the subject referent moves despite external difficulty or in some indirect way.
Thus, way is a meaningful element, designating the path of motion. The Manner Interpretation This interpretation does not imply external difficulties, there is no necessary implication that a path must be created. The subject referent moves along a pre-established path, e.g. They were clanging their way up and down the narrow streets. He was scowling his way along the fiction shelves in a pursuit of a book.
The way phrase is not represented in the semantics of the construction, but is syntactically encoded into the form of the direct object complement. Semantic constraints Unbounded Activity for both interpretations the verb necessarily designates a repeated action or unbounded activity, e.g. Firing wildly, Jones shot his way through the crowd. He hiccupped his way out of the room. Self-Propelled
Motion for the means interpretation motion must be self-propelled. The constraint rules out unaccusative verbs, as unaccusativity correlates with lack of agentivity or lack of self-initiation, e.g. The bank-debt restructuring is the centerpiece of Lomas Financials month-long efforts to shrink its way back to profitability after 2 years of heavy losses. But The wood burns its way to the ground. Directed
Motion mostly for the means interpretation the motion must be directed - it cannot be aimless, e.g. She shoved her way through the crowd. The Way Construction is available for use with a wide variety of verbs compare resultatives and fake object resultatives which are highly restrictive . The Way Construction is directly associated with a certain semantics independently of the lexical items which instantiate it. 4. EVENT INTEGRATION IN SYNTAX
FROM TOWARD A COGNITIVE SEMANTICS BY L. Talmy T h e n o t i o n s e v e n t i n t e g r a t i o n a n d m a c r o - e v e n t .L i n g u i s t i c p a t t e r n s f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f m a c r o - e v e n t s In the conceptual organization of language there is a certain type of event complex. On the one hand, the event complex can be conceptualized as composed of two simple events and relation between them and expressed by a complex sentence.
On the other hand, the event complex can be conceptualized as a single event and expressed by a simple sentence. L. Talmy proposed the term event integration to identify the process of conceptual fusion of distinct events into a unitary one. The different ways of conceptualization of the same content is viewed in the alternative linguistic patterns a complex sentence consisting of a main clause representing a main event and a subordinate clause that has a subordinating conjunction representing a subordinate
event, which bears a particular kind of semantic relation to the main event a simple sentence. Compare a The aerial toppled because I did smth. to it e.g. because I threw a rock at it . b I toppled the aerial. Sentence a manifests a causal sequence of separate events, sentence b manifests the same content as a unitary event. There is a generic category of complex events that is prone to conceptual integration and representation
by a single clause. L. Talmy calls this type of complex events a macro-event and distinguishes the following event- types Motion, Change of State, Temporal Contouring, Action Correlation, Realization. Within the macro-event there should be distinguished a framing event can be compared to the main event, expressed by the main clause within a complex sentence and a co-event can be compared to the subordinate event, expressed by the subordinate clause within a complex sentence
. The framing event constitutes an event schema, which schematizes the macro-event as Motion, Change of State, etc. The co-event constitutes an event of circumstance within the macro-event and bears the support relation to the framing event. The support relations include those of Cause, Manner, Precursion, Enablement, Concomitance, Purpose and
Constitutiveness. The most frequent among these are Cause and Manner. The conceptual structure of the macro-event is mapped onto syntactic structure. In English the framing event or rather the event schema is expressed by the satellite, while the co-event - by the main verb. The satellite is the grammatical category of any constituent other than a nominal or prepositional- phrase complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root.
In English they are verb particles, prefixes, resultatives formally adjectives . Although, the event schema is largely expressed by the satellite alone, it can be also expressed by a combination of a prepositional phrase containing a locative noun , e.g. 1. The coin melted free from the ice satellite resultative 2. He waved us into the hall prepositional phrase, containing a locative noun 3.
He came back satellite 4. He drove her home satellite. M o t i o n a s t h e f r a m i n g e v e n t c o n c e p t u a l p r o t o t y p e o f t h e f r a m i n g e v e n t Schemas of the macro-event Linguistic representation Motion as the framing event is realized through Path . The co-event is a self-contained motion - aspectually unbounded activity, such as rotation, oscillation,
local wander, etc. Motion is realized through Path Ground . The co-event is an action. 1.The ball rolled bounced down the hall. Path is represented by the prepositional phrase co-event self-contained motion - by the verb-predicate. 2.He drove her home.3. I kicked the door shut. Path Ground is represented by the satellites home 2 , shut 3 .
Type of support relation between Linguistic representationa co-event and a framing event Manner This type of relation presupposes that the co-event is an additional activity, performed concurrently with the framing event Manner subtypes Agentive Manner there is an Agent, who performs the additional activity co-event which leads to and causes the framing event itself Nonagentive Manner the source of the co-event additional activity is the moving figure itself
Cause This type of relation presupposes that the co-event is an additional activity which causes the co-event , which in turn causes the framing event. Cause subtypes Agentive Cause the source of the cause of motion is an Agent Nonagentive Cause the source of the cause is not explicitly expressed 1. I rolled the pen across the table. I acted on the pen and made it move across the table, rolling as
it went. 2. The bottle floated into the cave. 3. I blew the pen across the table. I blew on the pen and made it move across the table. 4. I kicked the ball into the box. 5. The bone pulled out of its socket. S t a t e c h a n g e a s t h e f r a m i n g e v e n t The macro-event framed by a state change event consists of a co-event any process or activity that determines
the dynamics of the macro-event and causes a change in some of its property and a framing event state change , which announces the result or final stage of the dynamics of the macro-event. The analysis of linguistic expressions suggests that the schema of the macro-event is that of the motion event Path or Path Ground . Within the structure of the macro-event, state change as a framing event is more abstract than a co-event and often involves change in an individuals cognitive state.
For example, state changes may include to become awake aware familiar in possession existent nonexistent dead etc. The co-event is concrete and physical compare the verb predicates in the examples below . The most prevalent type of relation between a co-event and framing event are the same as with the case of motion Manner and Cause . Type of support relation between Linguistic representationa co-event and a framing event
Agentive Manner Nonagentive Manner Agentive Cause Nonagentive Cause 1. I swung slammed the door shut. 2. I eased him awake gently. 3. The door swung creaked slammed shut. 4. He jerked awake. 5. I kicked the door shut. 6. I shook him awake. 7. The door blew shut. Types of change Linguistic pattern
Examples T r a n s i t i o n from presence to absence type discrete transition final state of transition is profiled bounded gradient transit. transition in its progression through a gradient state to a final one Linguistic patterns bear the motion scheme go put out of existence verb satellite out verb satellite away transition is slow and lengthy verb satellite up transition is quick and brief 1. The candle flickered sputtered out at exactly midnight - is consonant with a punctual temporal expression
at exactly midnight . 2.The candle blew out. 3. I blew waved pinched the candle out. 4.The meat rotted away in five days - is consonant with a bounded temporal extent expression in five days . 5. The ice melted away. 6. The hinge rusted away. 7.The image faded away. 8. The jacket elbows have worn away. 9. The leaves withered away. 10. The log burned up in 1 hour.
Compare The log burned for 30 minutes before going out by itself. 11. I ate up the popcorn in 10 minutes. Compare I ate the popcorn for 15 minutes before I stopped myself. T r a n s i t i o n from absence to presence type discrete transition bounded gradient transit. discrete transition bounded gradient transit. T r a n s i t i o n accumulation type T r a n s i t i o n from an intact physical condition to a nonintact
condition type T r a n s i t i o n cognitive change type - to familiarity cognitive change type - to awareness T r a n s i t i o n entry into a state type T r a n s i t i o n departure from a state type T r a n s i t i o n continued maintenance of a state type T r a n s i t i o n traversal through a state type Linguistic patterns bear the motion scheme come bring into existence verb satellite up in at temporal
phrases verb satellite up in in temporal phrases verb satellite out in at temporal phrases in in temporal phrases verb satellite up transitive construction verb direct object patient satellite up transitive construction verb direct object patient, expressed by a reflexive prepositional phrase verb combination of a preposition and a noun verb adjective verb combination of a preposition and a noun verb satellite an adjective the constructional meaning is not that of state entry but state situatedness verb preposition
for object the constructional meaning is in search of verb satellite off preposition with noun the constructional meaning is carrying along smth. that one has stolen 12. I Xeroxed up 3 copies of his original letter. Compare I Xeroxed his original letter. 13. I boiled up some fresh coffee for breakfast at our campsite. Compare I boiled last nights coffee for breakfast at the campsite.
14. I thought up a plan. Compare I thought about the issues. The difference in the examples is that in up sentences the idea of effected objects is rendered, while in the contrast sentences the idea of affected objects is rendered. 15. I tapped out a message on the radiator pipes. 16. I saved up 5.000 dollars in 5 years. Compare I saved my 5.000 dollars for 5 years.
17. Jane has bought up beachfront property in the county. Compare Jane has bought beachfront property in the county. Up sentences announce the idea of progressive amassing a good deal of property over time , while the contrast sentences render the idea of one-time action . 18. The dog chewed the shoe up in 30 minutes. Compare
The dog chewed on the shoe for 15 minutes. 19. I have read myself into the book. 20. The actor has plays himself into his role. 21. I have worked myself into my job. 22. German Sie hat ihr Kind herausgehort. 23. The water froze into a solid block of ice. 24. The wood chips boiled down to a pulp. 25. He choked to death on a bone.
26. I burned him to death 27. The army battled the peninsula into its possession 28. We drilled oil into our possession. 29. The shirt flapped dry in the wind. 30. The tin-can rusted stiff. 31. I painted the fence blue. 32. The apparition blinked out of existence. 33. I nailed the door shut. It means that the door was already shut and I initiated the maintaining of the door in that shut state
by driving nails into it. 34. I felt for nails on the blackboard 35. I listened to the record for the scratches 36. I looked all over for the missing button. 37. I walked drove sailed flew off with the money. Compare to make to take off with A c t i o n c o r r e l a t i n g a s t h e f r a m i n g e v e n t The macro-event framed by an action correlating event consists of a particular activity performed
by some agency a co-event which is associated with another activity performed by a different agency a framing event . The framing event the second activity is either comparable to or complementary to the co-event the first activity . The support relation between the co-event and the framing event is that of Constitutiveness, e. g. 1. I met John it means, that John is also engaged in the action of meeting me . 2.
I ate with Jane. 3. I threw the ball to John. 4. I ran after Jane. There are 3 types of action correlating, schematizing the macro-event in English concert, accompaniment, surpassment. Types of action correlating Linguistic pattern Examples C o n c e r t -the co-event agency acts in concert with the framing event agency, they are equipotent components of a joint unity, each component is essential for the existence
of the whole A c c o m p a n i m e n t -the co-event agency acts in accompaniment or as an addition to the framing event agency the co-event is basic, essential activity of the macro-event, the framing event is an incidental aspect of the macro-event S u r p a s s m e n t - the co-event agency either marshals his activity to surpass the framing event agencys activity, or his activity simply happens to surpass the framing event agencys activity verb together with verb along with verb preposition to
noun noun phrase prefixal satellite out verb 1. I played the melody together with him. 2. I jog together with him. It means, that we schedule and execute our activity jointly and might not engage in it singly. 3. Mary sang along with him. 4. I played along with the phonograph record. 5. I jog along with him. It means, that he has his own regular routine of jogging independently and
I sometimes accompany him. 6. I swayed tapped my foot danced hummed to the rhythm beat music sound of the waves lapping against the shore. 7. I outplayed him. 8. I outran him. 9. I outcooked him. CONTENTS L E C T U R E 1. SYNTAX AND ITS MAIN UNITS. TRADITIONAL AND COGNITIVE APPROACHES IN SYNTAX 3 L E C T U R E 2.
SYNTAX OF THE PHRASE 9 L E C T U R E 3. THE SIMPLE SENTENCE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION 14 L E C T U R E 4. THE SIMPLE SENTENCE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS 17 L E C T U R E 5. ACTUAL DIVISION OF THE SENTENCE.COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES 23 L E C T U R E 6. SYNTAX OF A
COMPOSITE SENTENCE THE STRUCTURE OF A COMPLEX SENTENCE .29 L E C T U R E 7. SYNTAX OF A COMPOSITE SENTENCE THE COMPOUND SENTENCE. THE STRUCTURE AND TYPES OF SEMI-COMPOSITE SENTENCES IN MODERN ENGLISH 33 L E C T U R E 8. SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS.
SENTENCE TYPOLOGY WITHIN A COGNITIVE APPROACH 38 L E C T U R E 9. TEXT AS AN OBJECT OF SYNTACTIC STUDY . 48 FURTHER READINGS ON ENGLISH SYNTAX 1. ON SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS FROM COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BY J.R. TAYLOR 53 2. ON SENTENCE TYPOLOGY CLAUSE TYPES AND CLAUSE STRUCTURE
FROM COGNITIVE GRAMMAR BY J.R. TAYLOR 57 3. SEMANTICS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS FROM CONSTRUCTIONS BY A.GOLDBERG 60 4. EVENT INTEGRATION IN SYNTAX FROM TOWARD A COGNITIVE SEMANTICS BY L. TALMY . 65
| ! |
Как писать рефераты Практические рекомендации по написанию студенческих рефератов. |
| ! | План реферата Краткий список разделов, отражающий структура и порядок работы над будующим рефератом. |
| ! | Введение реферата Вводная часть работы, в которой отражается цель и обозначается список задач. |
| ! | Заключение реферата В заключении подводятся итоги, описывается была ли достигнута поставленная цель, каковы результаты. |
| ! | Оформление рефератов Методические рекомендации по грамотному оформлению работы по ГОСТ. |
| → | Виды рефератов Какими бывают рефераты по своему назначению и структуре. |