Материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления пользователям Интернета и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав.
© 2018 - 2024
Composite sentences as polypredicative constructions. A clause in a composite sentence; its correlation with a separate sentence. Subordinative polypredication (hypotaxis) and coordinative polypredication (parataxis); complex and compound sentences as the two basic types of composite sentences. Syndeton and asyndeton vs. coordination and subordination. Cumulative polypredication; cumulative sentences as intermediary constructions between composite sentences and sequences of separate sentences. Polypredication of fused type; semi-composite sentences as intermediary constructions between simple and composite sentences.
It has been mentioned, that composite sentences differ from simple sentences by the number of predicative lines represented: simple sentences are monopredicative syntactic constructions, formed by only one predicative line, while composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions, formed by two or more predicative lines, each with a subject and a predicate of its own. This means, that the composite sentence reflects two or more situations or events making up a unity.
Each predicative unit in a composite sentence forms a clause. A clause as a part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence, but a composite sentence is not at all equivalent to a sequence of the simple sentences underlying its clauses. Cf.: This is the issue I planned to discuss with you. - This is the issue. I planned to discuss it with you. The purpose of communication in the composite sentence above is the presentation of a certain topic; this is lost in the transformation of the sentence into a sequence of simple sentences.
There are two principal types of composite sentences: complex and compound. In compound sentences, the clauses are connected on the basis of coordinative connections (parataxis); by coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i.e. equipotently (cf. equipotent, or coordinative phrases; see Unit 19). In complex sentences, the clauses are united on the basis of subordinative connections (hypotaxis); by subordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically unequal rank, one of which dominates another (cf. dominational, or subordinative phrases; see Unit 19). In terms of the positional structure of the sentence; this means that by subordination one of the clauses (subordinate) is placed in a notional position of the other (principal). This structural characteristic has an essential semantic implication: a subordinate clause, however important the information rendered by it might be for the whole communication, presents it as naturally supplementing the information in the principal clause, cf.: This is the issue I planned to discuss with you. As for coordinated clauses, their equality in rank is expressed above all in each sequential clause explicitly corresponding to a new effort of thought, which can be introduced by the purely copulative conjunction and or the adversative conjunction but, cf.: I want to discuss something with you, but we can talk about it later. The sequential clause in a compound sentence is usually rigidly fixed and refers to the whole of the leading clause, whereas the subordinate clause in a complex sentence usually refers to one notional constituent in the principal clause and can vary positionally (as in the examples above).
The connections between the clauses in a composite sentence may be effected syndetically, i.e. by means of special connecting words, conjunctions and other conjunctional words or word-combinations, or asyndetically, i.e. without any conjunctional words used.
There is some controversy concerning the status of syndeton and asyndeton versus coordination and subordination. According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be subdivided on the upper level into compound and complex, and on the lower level of subdivision each type is represented by syndetic and asyndetic connections. This view was challenged by N. S. Pospelov and some other Russian linguists, who treated this subdivision in the opposite way: at the higher level of classification all composite sentences should be divided into syndetic and asyndetic, while at the lower level the syndetic composite sentences (and only these) should be divided into compound and complex ones in accordance with the connective words used. This approach was also challenged, in particular, by B. A. Ilyish, who pointed out the mixture of two different criteria – formal and semantic - in both classifications. Indeed, the semantic equality of syndetic and asyndetic constructions is unquestionable in the following example: This is the issue I planned to discuss with you. – This is the issue, which I planned to discuss with you; both sentences include the subordinate attributive clause. Besides, asyndetic connection of clauses often displays its own specific functional value, which supports arguments for the existence of asyndetic polypredication.
Alongside the two basic types of composite sentences there is one more type of polypredicative construction, in which the connections between the clauses are rather loose, syntactically detached: the following clause is like an afterthought, an expansion or a comment to the proceeding clause. In oral speech its formal sign is often the tone of sentential completion, followed by a shorter pause than the usual pause between separate sentences. In written speech such clauses are usually separated by semi-final punctuation marks: a dash, a colon, a semi-colon or brackets, e.g.: I wasn’t going to leave; I’d only just arrived. This type of connection is called cumulation (see Unit 19), and such composite sentences can be called cumulative. The status of cumulative sentences is intermediary between composite sentences proper and combinations of sentences in supra-sentential constructions.
Various parenthetical clauses of introductory and commenting-deviational semantics can be treated as specific cumulative clauses, which give a background to the essential information of the expanded clause, e.g.: As I have already told you, they are just friends.
Alongside the “completely” composite sentence, built up by two or more fully predicative lines, there are polypredicative constructions, in which one predicative line may be partially predicative (potentially predicative, semi-predicative), as, for example, in sentences with various verbid complexes, e.g.: I heard him singing in the backyard (see Unit 11). Such sentences actually render two situations and present two predicative lines in fusion, or blended with each other; this can be demonstrated in explanatory transformations of these constructions into composite sentences: I heard him, when he was singing in the backyard; He was singing in the backyard and I heard him. The transformations show that such sentences are derived from two base sentences and that their systemic status can be treated as intermediary between the simple sentence and the composite sentence. They can be defined as “semi-composite sentences”. (They will be analyzed in Unit 28).
Key terms: polypredication, composite sentence, coordination (parataxis), subordination (hypotaxis), subordinative (dominational) polypredication, complex sentence, coordinative (equipotent) polypredication, compound sentence, principal clause, subordinate clause, leading clause, sequential clause, syndetic and asyndetic connections, cumulative (loose, detached) polypredication, cumulation, cumulative construction, introductory and commenting-deviational parenthesis, semi-composite sentence
UNIT 26
COMPLEX SENTENCE
The complex sentence as a polypredicative construction built on the principle of subordination (hypotaxis). Paradigmatic presentation of the complex sentence: clausalization of base sentences; the matrix sentence and the insert sentences; the principal clause and the subordinate clause. Actual division of complex sentences. The classification of complex sentences on the basis of subordinate clause types; categorial and functional classifications of subordinate clause types. Substantive-nominal, qualification-nominal and adverbial subordinate clauses; clauses of primary nominal positions (subject, predicative and object clauses), clauses of secondary nominal positions (attributive clauses) and clauses of adverbial positions. Subordinating connectors: pronominal words and pure conjunctions. Semantic types of subordinators: substantive-nominal and qualification-nominal clausalizers (conjunctions and pronominal words), and adverbial clausalizers (conjunctions). Asyndetic connections in complex sentences (the zero subordinator). Types of attributive clauses: “descriptive” and “restrictive” attributive clauses. The problem of appositive clauses; appositive clauses of nounal relation, of pronominal relation and of anticipatory relation. The subtypes of adverbial clauses: clauses of time and clauses of place, clauses of manner and comparison, clauses of different circumstantial semantics (of attendant event, condition, cause (reason), consequence (result), concession, and purpose). The problem of parenthetical clauses; introductory and deviational clauses. Transferred and mixed types of subordinate clauses. The classification of complex sentences on the basis of mutual dependence of clauses: monolithic (one-member) sentences and segregative (two-member) sentences. Parallel (homogeneous and heterogeneous) and consecutive subordination. The depth of subordination perspective.
The complex sentence is a polypredicative construction built on the principle of subordination (hypotaxis). In paradigmatic presentation, the derivational history of the complex sentence is as follows: two or more base sentences are clausalized and joined into one construction; one of them performs the role of a matrix in relation to the others, the insert sentences. The matrix base sentence becomes the principal clause of the complex sentence and the insert sentences become its subordinate clauses, e.g.: The team arrived. + It caused a sensation. à When the team arrived, it caused a sensation.
The minimal complex sentence includes two clauses: the principal one and the subordinate one. This is the main type of complex sentences, first, in terms of frequency, and, second, in terms of its paradigmatic status, because a complex sentence of any volume can be analyzed into a combination of two-clause complex sentence units.
The principal clause positionally dominates the subordinate clause, which is embedded into it: even if the principal clause is incomplete and is represented by just one word, the subordinate clauses fill in the open positions, introduced by the principal clause, in the underlying simple sentence pattern, e.g.: What you see is what you get - What you see (the subject) is (the predicate) what you get (the object). Semantically, the two clauses are interconnected and form a semantico-syntactic unity: the existence of either of them is supported by the existence of the other.
The dominant positional status of the principal clause does not mean that it expresses the central informative part of the communication: any clause of a complex sentence can render its rheme or its theme. As in a simple sentence, in a neutral context the preceding part renders the starting point of communication, the theme, and the following part, placed near the end of the sentence, renders the most important information, the rheme, cf.: What he likes most about her is her smile. - Her smile is what he likes most about her. In the first sentence the principal part is rhematic, and in the second sentence the subordinate clause. Besides the clause-order, as with word-order in general, there are other means of expressing the correlative informative value of clauses in complex sentences, such as intonation, special constructions, emphatic particles and others.
The informative value of a principal clause may be reduced to the mere introduction of a subordinate clause; for example, the principal clause can perform the “phatic” function, i.e. the function of keeping up the conversation, of maintaining the immediate communicative connection with the listener, e.g.: I think you are a great parent; in this sentence, the basic information is rendered by the rhematic subordinate clause, while the principal clause is phatic, specifying the speaker’s attitude to the information.
Different types of complex sentences are distinguished, first of all, on the basis of their subordinate clause types. Subordinate clauses are classified on two mutually complementary bases: on the functional principle and on the categorial principle.
According to the functional principle, subordinate clauses are divided on the analogy (though, not identity) of the positional parts of the simple sentence that underlies the structure of the complex sentence. E.g.: What you see is what you get. - What you see (the subject, the subject subordinate clause) is what you get (the object, the object subordinate clause).
According to the categorial principle, subordinate clauses are divided by their inherent nominative properties; there is certain similarity (but, again, not identity) with the part-of-speech classification of words. Subordinate clauses can be divided into three categorial-semantic groups: substantive-nominal, qualification-nominal and adverbial. Substantive-nominal subordinate clauses name an event as a certain fact, e.g.: What you do is very important; cf.: What is very important? Qualification-nominal subordinate clauses name a certain event, which is referred, as a characteristic to some substance, represented either by a word or by another clause, e.g.: Where is the letter that came today?; cf.: What letter? Adverbial subordinate clauses name a certain event, which is referred, as a characteristic to another event, to a process or a quality, e.g.: I won’t leave until you come.
The two principles of subordinate clause classification are mutually complementary: the categorial features of clauses go together with their functional sentence-part features similar to the categorial features of words going together with their functional characteristics. Thus, subordinate clauses are to be classified into three groups: first, clauses of primary nominal positions, including subject, predicative and object clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions, including various attributive clauses; and third, clauses of adverbial positions.
The classification of clauses is sustained by the subdivision of functional connective words, which serve as sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalizers), transforming the base sentences into subordinate clauses of various types.
Subordinating connectors are subdivided into two basic types: pronominal words and pure conjunctions. Pronominal connective words occupy a notional position in the derived sentence; for example, some of them replace a certain antecedent (i.e. a word or phrase to which the connector refers back) in the principal clause, e.g.: The man whom I met yesterday surprised me. Pure subordinate conjunctions do not occupy a notional position in the derived sentence, e.g.: She said that she would come early. Some connectors are bifunctional, i.e. used both as conjunctions and as conjunctive substitutes, cf.: She said that she would come early; Where is the letter that came today?
Semantically, subordinators (both conjunctions and conjunctive substitutes) are subdivided in correspondence with the categorial type of the subordinate clauses which they introduce: there are substantive-nominal and qualification-nominal clausalizers (conjunctions and pronominal words), which introduce the event-fact, and adverbial clausalizers (conjunctions), showing relational characteristics of events. Some connective words can be used both as nominal connectors and as adverbial connectors, cf.: Do you know when they are coming? (What do you know?) – We’ll meet when the new house is finished (When shall we meet?).
Together with these, the zero subordinator should be named, whose polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that, cf.: She said that she would come early. – She said Ø she would come early; This is the issue that I planned to discuss with you. – This is the issue Ø I planned to discuss with you.
Clauses of primary nominal positions, including subject, predicative and object clauses, are interchangeable with each other, cf.: What you see is what you get; What you get is what you see; You’ll be surprised at what you see. The subject clause regularly expresses the theme of a complex sentence, and the predicative clause regularly expresses its rheme. The subject clause may express the rheme of the sentence, if it is introduced by the anticipatory ‘it’, e.g.: It is true that he stole the jewels. The subject clause in such complex sentences is at the same time appositive. The status of the object clause is most obvious in its prepositional introduction (as in the example above). Sometimes it is mixed with other functional semantics, determined by the connectors, in particular, with adverbial relational meanings, e.g.: Do you know when they are coming? A separate group of object clauses are those presenting the chunks of speech and mental activity processes, traditionally discussed under the heading “the rules of reported speech”, e.g.: She said she would come early; Do you mean you like it?
Clauses of secondary nominal positions, including various attributive clauses, fall into two major groups: “descriptive” attributive clauses and “restrictive” (“limiting”) attributive clauses. The descriptive attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i.e. its substantive referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause performs a purely identifying role, singling out the referent of the antecedent in the situation, cf.: I know a man who can help us (descriptive attributive clause); This is the man whom I met yesterday (restrictive attributive clause). Some descriptive attributive clauses are attributive only in form, but semantically, they present a new event which somehow continues the chain of events reflected by the sentence as a whole; these complex sentences can be easily transformed into compound sentences, e.g.: We caught a breeze that took us gently up the river. à We caught a breeze and it took us gently up the river. Appositive clauses, a subtype of attributive clauses, define or elucidate the meaning of the substantive antecedent of abstract semantics, represented by such nouns as ability, advice, attempt, decision, desire, impulse, promise, proposal, etc, or by an indefinite or demonstrative pronoun, or by an anticipatory ‘it’, e.g.: I had the impression that she was badly ill; It was all he could do not to cry; It is true that he stole the jewels. The unique role of the subjective anticipatory appositive construction, as has been mentioned, consists in the fact that it is used as a universal means of rheme identification in the actual division of the sentence.
Clauses of adverbial positions make up the most numerous and the most complicated group of subordinate clauses, reflecting the intricacy of various relations between events and processes. The following big groups of adverbial clauses can be distinguished. First, clauses of time and clauses of place render the semantics of temporal and spatial localization. Local identification is primarily determined by subordinators: it may be general, expressed by the conjunctions when and where, or particularizing, expressed by such conjunctions as while, since, before, no sooner than, from where, etc., e.g.: I jumped up when she called; Sit where you like; I won’t leave until you come. Second, clauses of manner and comparison give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause, e.g.: Profits are higher than they were last year; Her lips moved soundlessly, as if she were rehearsing. The syntactic semantics of manner is expressed by subordinate appositive clauses introduced by phrases with the broad-meaning words way and manner, e.g.: George writes the way his father did. Third, the most numerous group, adverbial clauses of different circumstantial semantics includes “classical” subordinate clauses of attendant event, condition, cause (reason), result (consequence), concession, and purpose. E.g.: I am tired because I have worked all day; He spoke loudly so that all could hear him; If we start off now, we’ll arrive there by dinner; Even if the fault is all his, I must find a way to help him; He was so embarrassed that he could hardly understand her; etc. Cases of various ‘transferred’ and mixed syntactic semantics are also common in this group of clauses; e.g.: Whatever happens, she won’t have it her own way; the subordinate clause expresses circumstantial (concessive) semantics mixed with non-circumstantial (substantive-nominal) semantics. Fourth, a separate group of adverbial clauses is formed by subordinate clauses which function as parenthetical enclosures, inserted into composite syntactic constructions by a loose connection. Parenthetical predicative insertions can be either subordinative or coordinative, exposed by either a subordinating connector or a coordinative connector (cf.: inner cumulative connections in equipotent and dominational phrases; see Unit 19), e.g.: As far as I remember, the man was very much surprised to see me there; They used to be, and this is no longer a secret, very close friends. Semantically, parenthetical clauses may be of two types: “introductory”, expressing different modal meanings (as in the first example above), and “deviational”, expressing commenting insertions of varied semantic character (the second example above).
As the classification shows, the only notional position the subordinate clause can not occupy is the position of the predicate; this fact stresses once again the unique function of the predicate as the organizing centre of the sentence.
The clauses of a complex sentence can be connected with one another more or less closely. The degree (intensity) of syntactic closeness between the clauses reflects the degree of mutual dependence of their proposemic content. For example, the primary subordinate clauses, the subject clause and the predicative clause, are so closely connected with the principal clause that without them the principal clause cannot exist as a syntactic unit. The loose connections between the principal clause and the parenthetical enclosure make it possible to segregate the principal clause as an independent syntactic construction. Thus, all types of subordinative clausal connections are syntactically either obligatory or optional.
This distinction was used by the Russian linguist N. S. Pospelov to introduce another classification of complex sentences: he defined complex sentences with obligatory subordinate clauses as “one-member sentences” and complex sentences with optional subordinate clauses as “two-member sentences”. These two types of complex sentences can also be described as “monolithic” and “segregative” sentence structures correspondingly. The following complex sentences are syntactically monolithic: first, complex sentences with subject and predicative clauses, e.g.: What the telegram said was clear (*… was clear would be semantically and constructionally deficient); The telegram was what I expected from you (*The telegram was…); second, complex sentences in which the subordinate clauses perform the functions of complements, required by the obligatory valency of the predicate (usually, object clauses and adverbial clauses), e.g.: Tell me what you know about it (cf.: *Tell me…); Put the pen where you’ve taken it from; third, complex sentences with correlative connections, for example, with double connectors, e.g.: The more he thought about it, the more he worried; complex sentences with restrictive attributive clauses are monolythic, because they are based on a correlation scheme too, e.g.: It was the kind of book that all children admire; finally, the fourth type of monolithic complex sentences is formed by complex sentences with the subordinate clause in preposition to the principal clause, e.g.: As far as I remember, the man was very much surprised to see me there (cf.: *As far as I remember…); Even if the fault is all his, I must find a way to help him.
Segregative complex sentences are those with most of the adverbial clauses, parenthetical clauses and descriptive attributive clauses in postposition to the principal clause, e.g.: The man was very much surprised to see me there, as far as I remember (cf.: The man was very much surprised to see me); She wore a hat which was decorated with flowers (сf.: She wore a hat).
More than two clauses may be combined in one complex sentence. Subordinate clauses may be arranged by parallel or consecutive subordination. Subordinate clauses immediately referring to one principal clause are subordinated “in parallel’ or “co-subordinated”. Parallel subordination may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous: in homogeneous parallel constructions, the subordinate clauses perform similar functions, they are connected with each other coordinatively and depend on the same element in the principal clause (or, the principal clause in general), e.g.: He said that it was his business and that I’d better stay off it; in heterogeneous parallel constructions, the subordinate clauses mostly refer to different elements in the principal clause, e.g.: The man whom I saw yesterday said that it was his business. Consecutive subordinative constructions are formed when one clause is subordinated to another in a string of clauses, e.g.: I don’t know why she said that she couldn’t come at the time that I suggested. There are three consecutively subordinated clauses in this sentence; they form a hierarchy of three levels of subordination. This figure shows the so-called depth of subordination perspective, one of the essential syntactic characteristics of the complex sentence. In the previous examples, the depth of subordination perspective can be estimated as 1.
Key terms: subordination (hypotaxis), subordinative polypredication, matrix, insert sentence (embedded into the matrix), principal clause, subordinate clause, the phatic function, functional types of subordinate clauses, categorial types of subordinate clauses, substantive-nominal, qualification-nominal and adverbial clauses, clauses of primary nominal positions (subject, predicative, and object clauses), clauses of secondary nominal positions (attributive clauses), clauses of adverbial positions, subordinators (subordinating clausalizers), pure conjunctions, pronominal connectors, bifunctional connectors, the zero subordinator, “descriptive” and “restrictive” (“limiting”) attributive clauses, appositive clauses (of nominal relation, of pronominal relation and of anticipatory relation), antecedent, clauses of time and clauses of place, clauses of manner and comparison, clauses of circumstantial semantics (of attendant event, condition, cause (reason), consequence (result), concession, and purpose), introductory parenthetical clauses (enclosures of modal meaning) and deviational parenthetical clauses (commenting insertions), monolithic (one-member) complex sentence (with obligatory subordinate clauses), segregative (two-member) complex sentence (with optional subordinate clauses), parallel (homogeneous and heterogeneous) subordination, correlative connections, consecutive subordination, depth of subordination perspective
UNIT 27
COMPOUND SENTENCE
The compound sentence as a polypredicative construction built on the principle of coordination (parataxis). Paradigmatic presentation of the compound sentence; the leading clause and the sequential clause. The problem of the compound sentence as a separate syntactic unit; the semantico-syntactic differences between the compound sentence and the sequence of independent sentences in a text. Syndetic and asyndetic connections in compound sentences. The types of coordinative connectors: conjunctions proper and adverbial connectors. The zero coordinator. Marked and unmarked coordinative connections; adversative relations, disjunctive relations, causal-consequential relations, positive and negative copulative relations of events; pure copulative, enumerative relations, and broader unspecified connective meanings. Additional specification of coordinative connectors with particle-like and adverb-like words. The correlation between compound and complex sentences; the complex sentence as a diagnostic model for a compound sentence. Open and closed coordinative constructions.
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 (see Unit 25).
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.
Key terms: coordination (parataxis), compound sentence, leading clause (“leader” clause), sequential clause, textual sequence of independent sentences, coordinative connectors (coordinators), conjunctions proper, semi-functional connectors of adverbial character (adverbial coordinative connectors), zero coordinator, marked and unmarked coordination, adversative relations, disjunctive relations, causal-consequential relations, positive and negative copulative relations of events, pure copulative relations, enumerative relations, broader unspecified connective relations, equivalent substitution with marked connections, specifying particle-like and adverb-like words, diagnostic model, open and closed compound constructions
UNIT 28
SEMI-COMPOSITE SENTENCE
The semi-composite sentence as a polypredicative construction of fused (blended) composition. Paradigmatic presentation of the semi-composite sentence. The semi-composite sentence as an intermediary phenomenon between the simple sentence and the composite sentence. The leading (fully predicative) semi-clause and the semi-predicative expansion (the complicator). The two types of semi-composite sentences: semi-complex and semi-compound sentences. The types of semi-complex sentences effected by position-sharing or by direct linear expansion; semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing and of object-sharing; semi-complex sentences of attributive complication, of adverbial complication (conjoint and absolute) and of nominal complication. The types of semi-compound sentences: semi-compound sentences of a poly-predicate subject-sharing type and semi-compound sentences of a poly-subject predicate-sharing type. Semi-composite sentences and related pleni-composite sentences. Sentences of primitivized semi-composition.
As was mentioned above, in Unit 25, both composite and semi-composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions: they have two or more predicative lines. The difference between the two is in the degree of independence of predicative lines: in a composite sentence the predicative lines are expressed separately, they are fully predicative, each with a subject and a predicate (expressed by a finite form of the verb) of its own; in a semi-composite sentence the predicative lines are fused, blended, with at least one predicative line being semi-predicative (potentially predicative, partially predicative). In other words, in a semi-composite sentence, one predicative line can be identified as the leading, or dominant one, and the others are semi-predicative expansions.
Paradigmatically, the semi-composite sentence, being a polypredicative construction, is derived from two base sentences. For example: I saw her entering the room. ß I saw her. + She was entering the room. The second kernel sentence has been phrasalized, transformed into a participial phrase (her entering the room), and combined with the first sentence. The two predicative lines fuse, overlapping around the common element, her, which performs the function of the object of the leading, fully predicative part.
Thus, the semi-composite sentence can be defined as a syntactic construction of an intermediary type between the composite sentence and the simple sentence: in its “surface”, syntactic structure, it is similar to a simple sentence, because it contains only one fully predicative line; in its “deep”, semantic structure and in its derivational history, the semi-composite sentence is similar to a composite sentence, because it is derived from two base sentences and reflects two dynamic situations.
Semantically, the semi-composite sentence reflects the speaker’s presentation of two situationally connected events as being more closely united than the events described in the clauses of a composite sentence: one of the events (usually, the one in the semi-predicative semi-clause) is presented as a by-event, as a background situation in relation to the other, dominant event (usually, the one in the fully predicative semi-clause).
Semi-composite sentences, like composite sentences of complete composition (pleni-composite), are further subdivided into semi-compound sentences, built on the principle of coordination (parataxis), and semi-complex sentences, built on the principle of subordination (hypotaxis).
In the semi-complex sentence, one kernel sentence functions as a matrix into which the insert kernel sentence is embedded: the insert sentence is transformed into a partially predicative phrase and occupies the position of a nominative part in the matrix sentence. The matrix sentence becomes the dominant part of the semi-complex sentence and the insert sentence becomes its subordinate semi-clause.
Predicative fusion in semi-complex sentences may be effected in two ways: by the process of position-sharing (word-sharing) or by the process of direct linear expansion.
Sentences based on position-sharing fall into two types: sentences of subject-sharing and sentences of object-sharing. Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of two base sentences overlapping round a common subject, e.g.: They married young. ß They married. + They were young. The predicate in such sentences is defined as a double predicate, because it is a blend of a verbal predicate with a nominal predicate. Semi-complex sentences with double predicates express the simultaneity of two events, with the informative prominence on the semi-predicative complicator part; this can be shown by the transformation of the sentence into a correspondent complex (pleni-complex) sentence, cf.: When they married, they were young. Another type of the semi-complex sentence of subject-sharing is sentences which include the so-called complex subject constructions; in these sentences, the verb in the dominant part is used in the passive, and the complicator part includes either a participle, or an infinitive, e.g.: She was seen to enter the room / entering the room. Sentences with complex subject constructions, as was mentioned in Unit 11, are passive transforms of sentences with complex object constructions, which make up another type of sentences based on position-sharing.
In semi-complex sentences of object-sharing, the common element, round which the fully-predicative and the semi-predicative parts overlap, performs the function of an object in the leading part (the matrix) and the function of the subject in the complicator semi-clause (the insert); for example, in sentences with complex object constructions, which include either a participle, or an infinitive, e.g.: I saw her entering/ enter the room. ß I saw her. + She was entering the room. Such sentences express the simultaneity of two events in the same place (with verbs of perception in the dominant part) or various mental attitudes (with the verbs to tell, to report, to think, to believe, to find, to expect, etc. in the dominant part). There are other types of object-sharing semi-complex sentences, expressing the relations of cause and result, e.g.: The fallen rock knocked him unconscious. ß The fallen rock knocked him. + He became unconscious. Some causative verbs and verbs of liking/disliking are not normally used outside of semi-complex sentences of object-sharing; such complex sentences can be described as sentences of “bound” object-sharing, e.g.: They made me leave; We made him a star; I had my hair done; I want the room done; I like my steaks raw. Most semi-complex sentences of the object-sharing type, though not all of them, are transformable into sentences of the subject-sharing type, cf.: I saw her entering/ enter the room. à She was seen entering / to enter the room; The fallen rock knocked him unconscious. à He was knocked unconscious by the fallen rock. As the examples show, the complicator part in semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing and of object-sharing may include non-finite forms of the verb (the infinitive, participle I or participle II), nouns or adjectives.
Semi-complex sentences of direct linear expansion include sentences with attributive, adverbial and nominal complication. Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are built up by means of two base sentences, one of which is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to the antecedent element in the matrix sentence, e.g.: The girl crying in the hall looked familiar to me. ß The girl looked familiar to me. + The girl was crying. The shared semantic element performs the function of a subject in the insert sentence, which is dropped out in the process of semi-clausaliation (de-predication); in the matrix sentence it may perform any substantive function (it is a subject in the example above). Being linear expansions, attributive semi-clauses are easily restored to the related attributive pleni-clauses with verbal or nominal predicates, e.g.: The girl crying in the hall looked familiar to me. ß The girl, who was crying in the hall, looked familiar to me; You behave like a schoolboy afraid of his teacher. ß You behave like a schoolboy who is afraid of his teacher.
Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences, one of which, the insert sentence, is predicatively reduced (phrasalized) and embedded into an adverbial position of the other one, the matrix sentence, e.g.: When asked about her family, she blushed. ß She was asked about her family. + She blushed. Adverbial complication can be either conjoint or absolute: if the subject of the insert sentence is identical with the subject of the matrix sentence, it is deleted and a conjoint adverbial semi-clause is built, as in the example above; otherwise, the subject remains and an absolute adverbial construction is built, e.g.: The weather being fine, we decided to have a walk. ß The weather was fine. + We decided to have a walk; I won’t speak with him staring at me like that. ß I won’t speak. + He is staring at me. The partial predicate in an adverbial semi-clause is expressed by a participle (in so-called participial adverbial constructions), or is dropped, if it is the pure link verb to be (except for impersonal sentences, in which the verb to be is not deleted), e.g.: A child of seven, he was already an able musician. ß He was a child of seven. + He was already an able musician; I can’t sleep with the radio on. ß The radio is on. + I can’t sleep.
Semi-complex sentences of nominal complication are derived from two base sentences, one of which, the insert sentence, is partially nominalized (changed into a verbid phrase with an infinitive or a gerund) and embedded in one of the nominal positions of the other sentence, the matrix. Like other types of linear complication, infinitive and gerundial nominal semi-clauses are easily transformed into related fully-predicative subordinate clauses (nominal or adverbial), e.g.: I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before the meeting. à I sent the papers so that you could study them carefully before the meeting; We expected him to write a letter to you. à We expected that he would write a letter to you. The specific features of nominal semi-clauses are connected with the specific features of the infinitive and the gerund (see Unit 11); for example, the infinitive after a subordinative conjunction implies modal meanings of obligation, possibility, etc., e.g.: The question is what to do next. à The question is what we should do next; I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before the meeting. à I sent the papers so that you could study them carefully before the meeting; or, gerundial nominal constructions may be introduced by prepositions and may include a noun in the genitive or a possessive pronoun, e.g.: I can’t approve of his hiding himself away.
The semi-compound sentence, as was mentioned above, is a semi-composite sentence built on the principle of coordination (parataxis). Paradigmatically, the semi-compound sentence is built by two or more base sentences, which have an identical subject or an identical predicate (or both); in the process of semi-compounding, the two predicative lines overlap around the common element, the other principal parts being coordinated. For example, sentences with coordinated (homogeneous) predicates are derived from two or more base sentences having identical subjects; they build a poly-predicate subject-sharing type of semi-compound sentence, e.g.: She entered the room and closed the door behind her. ß She entered the room. + She closed the door behind her. One of the base sentences, as the example shows, becomes the leading clause of the semi-compound sentence, and the other one is transformed into the sequential coordinate semi-clause (expansion), referring to the same subject.
As for coordinated homogeneous subjects referring to the same predicate (building a poly-subject predicate-sharing type of semi-compound sentence), not all of them build separate predicative lines, but only those which are discontinuously positioned, or those which are connected adversatively, or contrastingly, or are detached in some other way, e.g.: Tom is participating in this project, and Jack too; Tom, not Jack, is participating in this project. ß Tom is participating in this project. + Jack is (not) participating in this project. Coordinated subjects connected in a plain syntagmatic string (syndetically or asyndetically) do not form separate predicative lines with the predicate, but are connected with it as a group subject; this is shown by the person and number form of the predicate, cf.: Tom and Jack are participating in this project.
The coordinative connections between the parts of semi-compound sentences are the same as the connections in compound sentences proper: unmarked coordination is expressed by the purely copulative conjunction and or by the zero coordinator; marked coordination includes the relations of disjunction (alteration), consequence, elucidation, adversative relations, etc. (see Unit 27).
Semi-compound sentences are transformable into related pleni-compound sentences with identical subjects or identical predicates, but such transformations show the functional differences between the two types of constructions. In particular, their actual division is different: the actual division of the compound sentence presents two informative perspectives joined in a complex, while the semi-compound sentence presents one perspective with a complex rheme. Besides, the repetition of an identical subject or predicate in a compound sentence makes it a communicatively intense, emotionally accented syntactic structure, cf.: I can’t work, I can’t think, I can’t be, because of me (Murdoch).
Besides semi-composite sentences proper, there are sentences of primitivized type, which include no secondary predicative constructions, but can still be traced to two situational events (they are sometimes treated as sentences with some “traces”, or “hints” of secondary predication, or with “covert secondary predication”); for example, in cases where one of the base sentences is fully nominalized, e.g.: The victory of the team caused a sensation. ß The team won. + It caused a sensation; or in cases of inner cumulation in syntactic constructions with detached nominative parts, e.g.: He was a very nice man, except with his wife. ß He was a very nice man. + He wasn’t a nice man with his wife.
Key terms: semi-composite sentence, fused (blended) predicative lines, semi-predication (secondary, potential predication), semi-clause, pleni-clause, leading semi-clause, complicator, semi-complex and semi-compound sentences, the process of position-sharing (word-sharing) and the process of direct linear expansion, subject-sharing, object-sharing, double predicate, complex subject constructions, complex object constructions, ‘bound’ object-sharing, attributive complication, adverbial complication (conjoint and absolute), nominal complication, semi-compound sentences of a poly-predicate subject-sharing type, semi-compound sentence of a poly-subject predicate-sharing type, primitivized semi-composition
UNIT 29
Text as an object of research. The problem of text in the hierarchy of language levels. Topical (semantic) unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion as basic differential features (categories) of the text. Monologue and dialogue sequences of sentences. The problem of textual units: a supra-phrasal unity (a complex syntactic unity), a dialogue unity; a cumuleme and an occurseme. Prospective (cataphoric) and retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation of sentences in the text. Conjunctive cumulation: pure conjunctions, conjunction-like adverbial and parenthetical connectors. Correlative cumulation: substitution and representation. Cumulation of mixed type. Communicative unity of sentences in textual sequences: linear and parallel connections of sentences. The dicteme as an elementary textual unit. Functions of the dicteme: the topical function, the functions of nomination, of predication and of stylization. Intonational delimitation of a dicteme in the text. The correlation of a dicteme and a paragraph. Intermediary phenomena between the sentence and the supra-sentential construction; parcellation and its stylistic load. Text as the sphere of functional manifestation of the sentence.
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[23][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 Prague linguistic 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, a cumuleme (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. The paragraph is a unit of written speech delimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close[24][2]; 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).
Dictemes 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.
Key terms: coherent stretch of speech, topical (semantic) unity, semantico-syntactic cohesion, monologue sequences, dialogue sequences, supra-phrasal unity, complex syntactic unity, supra-sentential construction, dialogue unity, cumulation, cumulative connections, cumuleme, occursive connections, occurseme, prospective (cataphoric) cumulation, retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation, conjunctive cumulation (conjunctions, adverbial and parenthetical connectors), correlation (correlative cumulation), substitution, representation, succeedent, antecedent, leading sentence, sequential sentence, communicative unity (the theme-rheme arrangement of sentences in a cumuleme), linear (progressive) and parallel connections, theme-rheme chain, dicteme, stylization, intonational delimitation, paragraph, parcellation, inner cumulation, macro-topic (micro-topic), macro-text (pleni-text), micro-text (parti-text)
Дата: 2019-12-22, просмотров: 709.