Билет 4 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.

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.à Is he interested in sports? A negation produced from an affirmation, e.g.: He is interested in sports. à 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.

Билет 6 IV. Phrase theory in cognitive linguistics (J.R. Taylor’s 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 Taylor, - the head-complement schema, as these two types of phrases are headed by the relational unit (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 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. 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 do 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. 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.