The Subject-Matter of the Theory of English Grammar

Theoretical Grammar is a section of linguistics that studies grammar system of lan-guage.

Grammar system of language refers to the whole complex of conformities to natural laws where the latter defines ways of words’ alterations and also ways of word combinations in phrases and sentences.

As any complex object Grammar is a complex system that is presented by elements and structure in their mutually dependent organization.

Grammar elements refer to morphemes, words, word-combinations and sentences.

Grammar structure implies relations and connections among grammar elements or inner organization of the language grammar system.

The subject of English Theoretical Grammar refers to the study of the English Language grammar organization as a system parts of which are mutually connected with definite relations of different types of complexity (complication, complicacy).

The main task of Theoretical Grammar is an adequate systematic (methodic) description of language facts and also their theoretical interpretation.

The difference between Practical and Theoretical Grammar refers to the following peculiarities:

1) Practical Grammar prescribes definite rules for the use of a language (gives instruc-tions for the use of language data, teaches how to speak and write);

2) Theoretical Grammar analyzes language data, interprets that, expounds the data but does

 

not give instructions as for the use of them.

Sentence in the text.

Syntax of the text is one of the youngest branches of grammar. The sentence and the phrase, as a constituent of the sentence, have been traditional objects of study in linguistics in general and of grammar in particular for centuries, starting with ancient linguistics. The text (oral or written) has been studied primarily by stylistics, rhetoric and literary studies, from the point of view of the means used by the speaker or the author of a written text to achieve the desired effect on the listener or the reader, the recipient of the text. Some linguistic aspects of textual sequences of sentences were also addressed: for example, connections between sentences were described in the works of the Russian linguists N. S. Pospelov, L. A. Bulakhovsky and others; the linguists of the Prague Linguistic Circle showed that the actual semantics of the sentence and the use of such lingual elements as articles or substitutive words cannot be accounted for without reference to the broader textual context. But it was only in the 1980s-90s that the majority of linguists admitted, that the sentence is not the largest grammatically arranged lingual unit.

Sentences are unified by a certain topic and are organized in speech according to a communicative purpose in a particular communicative situation. The linguistic description of the text is as follows: it is a speech sequence of lingual units interconnected semantically (topically) and syntactically (structurally); in other words, it is a coherent stretch of speech, characterized by semantic and syntactic unity. Topical (semantic) unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion ^[1] are the basic differential features (categories) of the text.

On the basis of the communicative direction of their component sentences, sentence sequences in speech are divided into monologue sequences and dialogue sequences. In a monologue,sentences are directed from one interlocutor (participant of communication) to another: from a speaker to a listener, or from an author to a reader, e.g.: Once upon a time there lived a beautiful princess. She had many suitors from far countries. In a dialogue, the sentences are directed from one interlocutor to another in turn, to meet one another, e.g.: “ Who is absent today?” – “John.” “What’s the matter with him?” – “He is ill.” Traditionally, a monologue sequence of sentences united by a common topic is identified as the basic textual unit; it is called a “ supra-phrasal unity ” (the term of L. A. Bulakhovsky) or a “ complex syntactic unity ” (the term of N. S. Pospelov); a two-directed sequence of sentences is sometimes called a “ dialogue unity ”.

The elements of a dialogue can be used in a monologue text: for example, the author of the text can ask a question and answer it in his or her “inner dialogue” (also known in stylistics as “dramatic monologue”), e.g.: What can I do in this situation? Nothing whatsoever. And vice versa, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, e.g.: “He is not a very nice person.” – “And he never was.” Dialogues can contain stretches of speech by a single speaker, which are actually monologues: descriptions, narrations, jokes, etc.

Thus, more consistent is the definition of the two types of sentence sequences on the basis of syntactic connections used: the supra-sentential construction of the one-direction communicative type is based on cumulation of sentences, so it can be defined as a cumulative sequence, or a “ cumuleme ”: the connections between the components of a dialogue sequence can be defined as “ occursive ” (from the Latin word “to meet”) and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive connections can be called an “ occurseme ”.

The occurseme as an element of the system occupies a place above the cumuleme: the occurseme can be built by separate sentences or by cumulative sequences. Both occursemes and cumulemes are topical textual entities.

Cumulation in sentence sequences may be of two types: prospective (cataphoric) cumulation and retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation.

Prospective or cataphoric cumulation presupposes the use of connective elements which relate the sentence in which they are used, to the sentence which follows. In other words, prospective connective elements make the preceding or leading sentence semantically incomplete; they signal that this sentence is to be semantically developed in the following, sequential sentence or sentences. E.g.: Let me tell you this. Jack will never let you down. In this cumulative sequence, the demonstrative pronoun this functions as a prospective connector. Among the other prospectives are: the following, as follows, the following thing (way), one thing, two things, etc.

Retrospective or anaphoric cumulation presupposes the use of connective elements relating the sentence in which they are used to the one that precedes it. In other words, retrospective (anaphoric) connectors make the sequential sentence dependent on the leading sentence of the sequence. E.g.: She was taken aback. However, she tried to pull herself together. Retrospective cumulation is the basic, the most neutral, and the most widely used type of text connection; prospective cumulation is much rarer, characteristic mostly of scientific and technical texts.

According to the connective means used, cumulation is divided into two types: conjunctive and correlative.

Conjunctive cumulation is achieved by functional or semi-functional conjunction-like words and word combinations: pure conjunctions (coordinative or subordinative), adverbial connectors, such as however, thus, yet, then, etc., or parenthetical connectors, such as firstly, secondly, on the one hand, on the other hand, in other words, as mentioned above, etc. Conjunctive cumulation is always retrospective (anaphoric).

Correlative cumulation is achieved by a pair of elements, one of which, the “ succeedent ”, refers to the other, the “ antecedent ”. Correlative cumulation may be either prospective or retrospective. Correlative cumulation can be divided into substitutional connection and representative connection. Substitutional correlation is based on the use of various substitutes, for example, pronouns, e.g.: I saw a girl. She looked very much upset; the girl is the antecedent of the pronoun she. The whole preceding sentence, or its clause, can be the antecedent of a correlative substitute, e.g.: We’re getting new machines next month. This (= this fact) will help us to increase productivity. Representative cumulation is achieved by elements which are semantically connected without the factor of replacement, e.g.: I saw a girl. Her face seemed familiar to me. Representative correlation includes repetition (so-called “repeated nomination”): simple lexical repetition or repetition complicated by different variations (by the use of synonyms, by certain semantic development, periphrasis, association, etc.), e.g.: I answered very sharply. My answer didn’t upset her.

Conjunctive and correlative types of cumulation are often used together in supra-sentential constructions.

Semantic unity and syntactic cohesion are supported by communicative unity of sentences, or theme-rheme arrangement (organization ) of the cumuleme. As was mentionned, the role of actual division of the sentence in the forming of the text was first demonstrated by the linguists of the Praguelinguistic school (F. Daneč, in particular). There are two basic types of theme-rheme arrangement of sentences in textual sequences: linear (progressive) connection and parallel connection of sentences. With linear connection of sentences, the rheme of the leading sentence becomes the theme of the sequential sentence, forming what is known as a theme-rheme chain, e.g.: There was a girl on the platform She was wearing a hat. The hat was decorated with flowers and ribbons. With parallel connection of sentences, the component sentences share the same theme within the supra-sentential construction, e.g.: George was an honest man. He had graduated from Harvard. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts.

As was mentioned earlier, in Unit 1, acumuleme (a cumulative supra-sentential construction) correlates with a separate sentence which is placed in the text in a topically significant position. Thus, the general elementary unit-segment of text built up by either a cumuleme or by a single sentence can be defined as a “ dicteme ” (from Latin ‘ dicto ’ ‘I speak’).

The basic communicative function of the dicteme is topical. But the dicteme is polyfunctional; in the text, besides the topical function, it performs the functions of nomination, predication, and stylization: besides combining various lingual units into a topical unity, it names propositional events, refers them to reality, and regulates the choice of lingual units, appropriate for communication in specific conditions.

In oral text, dictemes are delimited intonationally: pauses between dictemes are longer than pauses between sentences within the same cumuleme.

In written text, the dicteme is normally represented by a paragraph, but it must be noted that the two units are not identical. Theparagraph is a unit of written speechdelimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close; it is a purely literary-compositional device. A paragraph can include more than one dicteme, or it may divide one dicteme into parts, for example, for the introduction of utterances in a dialogue or for the introduction of separate points in enumerations. Still, though the paragraph is not a strictly syntactic device, the borderlines between paragraphs are basically the same as the borderlines between dictemes. Both multidicteme paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs are stylistically marked features of the text.

There are some syntactic constructions intermediary between the sentence and the sequence of sentences. The first one is known as parcellation: in a parcellated construction, the two parts are separated by a finalizing sentence tone in oral speech and by a full stop in written speech, but they relate to each other as parts of one and the same sentence, e.g.: I am always shy. With you. Parcellation can be treated as transposition of a sentence into a cumuleme; it adds some topical significance to the part parcellated. The second intermediary phenomenon is the result of transposing a cumuleme into a sentence when two or more semantically independent sentences are forced into one. This is characteristic of a casual manner of speech or, on the other hand, for prolonged literary passages; in written speech such constructions usually include semi-final punctuation marks, such as, for example, a semi-colon or brackets (see Unit 25; inner cumulation).

ictemes and paragraphs are connected within the framework of larger elements of texts in various groupings, each of them being characterized by semantic (topical) unity and syntactic cohesion. A large text, or macro-text (pleni-text), united by a macro-topic, is semantically subdivided into smaller texts, or micro-texts (parti-texts), united by micro-topics; for example, a novel can be subdivided into parts, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The smallest topical unit of this hierarchy is the dicteme.

These are the main grammatical aspects of texts. The text is studied in greater detail by a special branch of linguistics, text linguistics, by literary studies, and by stylistics. For example, in stylistics, various images, allusions, compositional peculiarities and other stylistic devices are treated as the means which contribute to the semantic unity and structural cohesion of the text. Various textual categories are distinguished, such as the category of textual time, the category of author, modality of the text, etc.

It must be noted, however, that from the point of view of grammar, the sentence remains the main element of syntax, while the text is the sphere of its functional manifestation; it is through combining different sentence-predications that topical reflections of reality are achieved in all the numerous forms of lingual communication

9.COMPOUND SENTENCE

As has been mentioned before, the compound sentence is a polypredicative construction built on the principle of coordination(parataxis); the clauses of a compound sentence are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, equipotently. Paradigmatically, the compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences, joined as coordinate clauses. One of them becomes the leading clause (the “leader” clause), and the other clauses, which may or may not include the coordinative connector, occupy the dependent sentential position and may be called sequential clauses. Though the dependence between the clauses of a compound sentence is not subordinative (the sequential clause is not inserted into the position of a nominative part in the matrix sentence), the dependence is manifested positionally: by means of differences in syntactic distribution of predicative units, different distributions of the ideas expressed are achieved. Cf.: They quarreled and then they made up (again); They made up, and then they quarreled (again) (the sequence of events in time is shown as different); or, She was sick and she took some medicine (= because she was sick); She took some medicine and she became sick (= because she took the medicine) (the sequence of events in time and their causal-consequential relations are shown as different).

There has been some controversy concerning the syntactic status of the compound sentence: some linguists maintain that it is not a specific syntactic construction, but a sequence of separate sentences similar to the combination of semantically related independent sentences in speech, as in supra-sentential constructions in the text. The following arguments are used to show the arbitrariness of compound sentences: the possibility of a falling, finalizing tone between the coordinated predicative units and the possibility of using the same coordinative conjunctions for the introduction of separate sentences; cf.: They quarreled, but then they made up again. - They quarreled. But then they made up again. The fact is, there is a distinct semantico-syntactic difference between the two constructions: the closeness of connections between the events is shown by means of combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence, while the connections between the events in a sequence of independent sentences are shown as rather loose. Besides, the subordinate clauses can also be separated in the text, being changed into specific independent sentences, but this does not challenge the status of the complex sentence as a separate syntactic unit.

Coordination, just like subordination, can be expressed either syndetically (by means of coordinative connectors) or asyndetically. Coordinative connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper, e.g.: and, but, or, for, either…or, neither… nor, etc., and semi-functional connectors of adverbial character, e.g.: nevertheless, besides, however, yet, thus, so, etc. Adverbial connectors, unlike pure conjunctions, can be shifted in the sequential clause (except for yet and so), e.g.: The company’s profits have fallen, but there is, however, another side to this problem. The coordinate clauses can be combined asyndetically (by the zero coordinator), e.g.: The quarrel was over, the friendship was resumed. The intensity of cohesion between coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a cumulative one, e.g.: I wasn’t going to leave; I’d only just arrived (cf.: I’d only just arrived and I wasn’t going to leave). Cumulative constructions have an intermediary status between the composite sentence and the sequence of independent sentences. Semantically, connections between coordinated clauses can be subdivided into two types: marked coordinative connection and unmarked coordinative connection. A marked coordination is expressed by conjunctions and adverbial connectors rendering adversative relations (but, however, yet, etc.), disjunctive relations (or, either… or, etc.), causal-consequential relations (so, for, therefore, thus, etc.), and positive and negative copulative relations of events (both... and, neither… nor). Unmarked coordination is expressed syndetically by the pure conjunction and, or asyndetically, by the zero coordinator. Relations rendered by unmarked connections are not specified in any way: they are either pure copulative relations, or enumerative relations, or broader connective meanings, which can be diagnosed by equivalent substitution with marked connections. Cf.: We started to sing and he started to sing along (unmarked coordination, copulative relations); They were sitting on the beach, the seagulls were flying above, the waves were rolling (unmarked coordination, relations of enumeration); She was sick and she took some medicine (= so she took some medicine – the relations of result or consequence). Both unmarked and marked coordinative connections can be additionally specified when coordinators are used with an accompanying functional particle-like or adverb-like word, e.g.: and yet, and besides, but instead, but also, or else, etc.

Some compound sentences can be easily transformed into complex sentences, and in these transformations complex sentences are used as diagnostic models to expose the semantic relations between the coordinate clauses; this is of especial importance for unmarked coordinative constructions. E.g.: Water the seeds and they will grow.à If you water the seeds, they will grow;the transformation shows that the event in the first clause is the condition for that in the second; She took some medicine and she became sick.à She became sick because she took some medicine; the copulative relations between the clauses can be specified as implying that one event is the cause which generated the following event as a consequence. Coordinative connections, as such transformations show, are semantically more general than the connections in complex sentences, which are semantically more discriminatory. It must be noted, though, that the coordinative and subordinative constructions above are not equivalent and coordinative connections are not reducible to subordinative connections.

The basic type of the compound sentence, as with the complex sentence, is a two-clause construction. If more than two or more sequential clauses are combined with one leading clause, from the point of view of semantic correlation between the clauses, such constructions are divided into “ open ” and “ closed ”. “Open” constructions may be further expanded by additional clauses (as in various enumerations or descriptions), e.g.: They were sitting on the beach, the seagulls were flying above, the waves were rolling... In “closed” coordinative constructions the final part is joined on an unequal basis with the previous ones and the finalization of the chain of ideas is achieved, e.g.: He joked, he made faces, he jumped around, but the child did not smile.