Теоретическая грамматика английского языка 2 (стр. 38 из 54)
Compare rhetorical questions in stylistically freer, more common forms of speech:
That was my mission, you imagined. It was not, but where was I to go? (0. Wilde) That was all right; I meant what I said. Why should I feel guilty about it? (J. Braine) How could I have ever thought I could get away with it! (J. Osborne)
It should be noted that in living speech responses to rhetorical questions exactly correspond to responses elicited by declarative sentences: they include signals of attention, appraisals, expressions of fellow feeling, etc. Cf.:
"How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly rational being?"- "My dear!" (O. Wilde)
A rhetorical question in principle can be followed by a direct answer, too. However, such an answer does not fill up the rheme of the rhetorical question (which, as different from the rhemc of a genuine question, is not at all open), but emphatically accentuates its intensely declarative semantic nature. An answer to a rhetorical question also emphasizes its affirmative or negative implication which is opposite to the formal expression of affirmation or negation in the outer structure of the question. Cf.:
"What more can a gentleman desire in this world?"--Nothing more, I am quite sure" (0. Wilde).
Due to these connotations, the answer to a rhetorical question can quite naturally be given by the speaker himself:
Who, being in love, is poor? Oh, no one (0. Wilde).
The declarative nature of the rhetorical question is revealed also in the fact that it is not infrequently used as an answer to a genuine question - namely, in cases when an expressive, emphatic answer is needed. Cf:.
"Do you expect to save the country, Mr Mangan?"-"Well, who else will?" (B. Shaw)
Rhetorical questions as constructions of intermediary communicative nature should be distinguished from such genuine questions as are addressed by the speaker to himself in the process of deliberation and reasoning. The genuine quality of the latter kind of questions is easily exposed by observing the character of their rhematic elements. E.g.:
Had she had what was called a complex all this time? Or was love always sudden like this? A wild flower seeding on a wild wind? (J. Galsworthy)
The cited string of questions belongs to the inner speech of a literary personage presented in the form of non-personal direet speech. The rhemes of the questions are definitely open, i.e. they are typical of ordinary questions in a dialogue produced by the speaker with an aim to obtain information from his interlocutor. This is clearly seen from the fact that the second question presents an alternative in relation to the first question; as regards the third question, it is not a self-dependent utterance, but a specification, cumulatively attached to the foregoing construction.
Genuine questions to oneself as part of monologue deliberations can quite naturally be followed by corresponding responses, forming various kinds of dialogue within monologue. Cf.:
Was she tipsy, week-minded, or merely in love? Perhaps all three! (J. Galsworthy). My God! What shall I do? I dare not tell her who this woman really is. The shame would kill her (0. Wilde).
§ 10. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
The expression of inducement within the framework of a declarative sentence is regularly achieved by means of constructions with modal verbs. E.g.:
You ought to get rid of it, you know (C.P. Snow). "You can't come in," he said. "You mustn't get what I have" (E. Hemingway). Well, you must come to me now for anything you want, or I shall be quite cut up (J. Galsworthy). "You might as well sit down," said Javotte (J. Erskine).
Compare semantically more complex constructions in which the meaning of inducement is expressed as a result of interaction of different grammatical elements of an utterance with its notional lexical elements:
"And if you'll excuse me, Lady Eileen, I think it's time you were going back to bed." The firmness of his tone admitted of no parley (A. Christie). If you have anything to say to me, Dr Trench, I will listen to you patiently. You will then allow me to say what I have to say on my part (B. Shaw).
Inducive constructions, according to the described general tendency, can be used to express a declarative meaning complicated by corresponding connotations. Such utterances are distinguished by especially high expressiveness and intensity. E.g.:
The Forsyte in him said: "Think, feel, and you're done for!" (J. Galsworthy)
Due to its expressiveness this kind of declarative inducement, similar to rhetorical questions, is used in maxims and proverbs. E.g:.
Talk of the devil and he will appear. Roll my log and I will roll yours. Live and learn. Live and let live.
Compare also corresponding negative statements of the formal imperative order:
Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Don't cross the bridge till you get to it.
§ 11. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
Imperative sentences performing the essential function of interrogative sentences are such as induce the listener not to action, but to speech. They may contain indirect questions. E.g.:
"Tell me about your upbringing." - "I should like to hear about yours" (EJ. Howard). "Please tell me what I can do. There must be something I can do." - "You can take the leg off and that might stop it..." (E. Hemingway).
The reverse intermediary construction, i.e. inducement effected in the form of question, is employed in order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request, invitation, suggestion, softening of a command, etc. E.g.:
"Why don't you get Aunt Em to sit instead. Uncle? She's younger than I am any day, aren't you. Auntie?" (J. Galsworthy). "Would - would you like to come?" - "I would," said Jimmy heartily. "Thanks ever so much. Lady Coote" (A. Christie).
Additional connotations in inducive utterances having the form of questions may be expressed by various modal constructions. E.g.:
Can I take you home in a cab? (W. Saroyan) "Could you tell me," said Dinny, "of any place close by where I could get something to eat?" (J. Galsworthy) I am really quite all right. Perhaps you will help me up the stairs? (A. Christie)
In common use the expression of inducement is effected in die form of a disjunctive question. The post-positional interrogative tag imparts to the whole inducive utterance a more pronounced or less pronounced shade of a polite request or even makes it into a pleading appeal. Cf.:
Find out tactfully what he wants, will you? (J. Tey). And you will come too, Basil, won't you? (0. Wilde)
§ 12. The undertaken survey of lingual facts shows that the combination of opposite cardinal communicative features displayed by communicatively intermediary sentence patterns is structurally systemic and functionally justified. It is justified because it meets quite definite expressive requirements. And it is symmetrical in so far as each cardinal communicative sentence type is characterized by the same tendency of functional transposition in relation to the two other communicative types opposing it. It means that within each of the three cardinal communicative oppositions two different intermediary communicative sentence models are established, so that at a further level of specification, the communicative classification of sentences should be expanded by six subtypes of sentences of mixed communicative features. These are, first, mixed sentence patterns of declaration (interrogative-declarative, imperative-declarative); second, mixed sentence patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative, imperative-interrogative); third, mixed sentence patterns of inducement (declarative-imperative, interrogative-imperative). All the cited intermediary communicative types of sentences belong to living, productive syntactic means of language and should find the due reflection both in theoretical linguistic description and in practical language teaching.
SIMPLE SENTENCE: CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
§ 1. The basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence, as has already been pointed out, are expressed by the finite verb which is immediately connected with the subject of the sentence. This predicative connection is commonly referred to as the "predicative line" of the sentence. Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several (more than one) predicative lines; in other words, sentences may be, respectively, "monopredicative" and "polypredicative". Using this distinction, we must say that the simple sentence is a sentence in which only one predicative line is expressed. E.g.:
Bob has never left the stadium. Opinions differ. This may happen any time. The offer might have been quite fair. Etc.
According to this definition, sentences with several predicates referring to one and the same subject cannot be considered as simple. E.g.:
I took the child in my arms and held him.
It is quite evident that the cited sentence, although it includes only one subject, expresses two different predicative lines, since its two predicates are separately connected with the subject. The content of the sentence reflects two closely connected events that happened in immediate succession: the first - "my taking the child in my arms"; the second-"my holding him".
Sentences having one verb-predicate and more than one subject to it, if the subjects form actually separate (though interdependent) predicative connections, cannot be considered as simple, either. E.g.:
The door was open, and also the front window.
Thus, the syntactic feature of strict monopredication should serve as the basic diagnostic criterion for identifying the simple sentence in contrast to sentences of composite structures of various systemic standings.
§ 2. The simple sentence, as any sentence in general, is organized as a system of function-expressing positions, the content of the functions being the reflection of a situational event. The nominative parts of the simple sentence, each occupying a notional position in it, are subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure; a special, semi-notional position is occupied by an interiectional enclosure. The parts are arranged in a hierarchy, wherein all of them perform some modifying role. The ultimate and highest object of this integral modification is the sentence as a whole, and through the sentence, the reflection of the situation (situational event).
Thus, the subject is a person-modifier of the predicate. The predicate is a process-modifier of the subject-person. The object is a substance-modifier of a processual part (actional or statal). The adverbial is a quality-modifier (in a broad sense) of a processual part or the whole of the sentence (as expressing an integral process inherent in the reflected event). The attribute is a quality-modifier of a substantive part. The parenthetical enclosure is a detached speaker-bound modifier of any sentence-part or the whole of the sentence. The addressing enclosure (address) is a substantive modifier of the destination of the sentence and hence, from its angle, a modifier of the sentence as a whole. The interiectional enclosure is a speaker-bound emotional modifier of the sentence.
All the said modifiers may be expressed either singly (single modifiers) or collectively, i.e. in a coordinative combination (co-modifiers, in particular, homogeneous ones).
The traditional scheme of sentence parsing shows many essential traits of the said functional hierarchy. On the scheme presented graphically, sentence-parts connected by bonds of immediate domination are placed one under the other in a successive order of subordination, while sentence-parts related to one another equipotently are placed in a horizontal order. Direct connections between the sentence-parts are represented by horizontal and vertical lines.
By way of example, let us take an ordinary English sentence featuring the basic modifier connections, and see its traditional parsing presentation (Fig. 4):
The small lady listened to me attentively.
The scheme clearly shows the basic logical-grammatical connections of the notional constituents of the sentence. If necessary, it can easily be supplemented with specifying linguistic information, such as indications of lexico-grammatical features of the sentence parts the same as their syntactic sub-functions.
However, observing the given scheme carefully, we must note its one serious flaw. As a matter of fact, while distinctly exposing the subordination ranks of the parts of the sentence, it fails to consistently present their genuine linear order in speech.
This drawback is overcome in another scheme of analysis called the "model of immediate constituents" (contractedly, the "IC-model").
The model of immediate constituents is based on the group-parsing of the sentence which has been developed by traditional grammar together with the sentence-part parsing scheme. It consists in dividing the whole of the sentence into two groups: that of the subject and that of the predicate, which, in their turn, are divided into their sub-group constituents according to the successive subordi-native order of the latter. Profiting by this type of analysis, the IC-model explicitly exposes the binary hierarchical principle of subordi-native connections, showing the whole structure of the sentence as made up by binary immediate constituents. As for equipotent (coordinative) connections, these are, naturally, non-binary, but, being of a more primitive character than subordinative connections, they are included in the analysis as possible inner subdivisions of subordinative connections.
Thus, structured by the IC-model, the cited sentence at the upper level of analysis is looked upon as a united whole (the accepted symbol S); at the next lower level it is divided into two maximal constituents - the subject noun-phrase (NP-subj) and the predicate verb-phrase (VP-pred); at the next lower level the subject noun-phrase is divided into the determiner (det) and the rest of the phrase to which it semantically refers (NP), while the predicate noun-phrase is divided into the adverbial (DP, in this case simply D) and the rest of the verb-phrase to which it semantically refers; the next level stages of analysis include the division of the first noun-phrase into its adjective-attribute constituent (AP, in this case A) and the noun constituent (N), and correspondingly, the division of the verb-phrase into its verb constituent (V or Vf-finite verb) and object noun-phrase constituent (NP-obj), the latter being, finally, divided into the preposition constituent (prp) and noun constituent (N). As we see, the process of syntactic IC-analysis continues until the word-level of the sentence is reached, the words being looked upon as the "ultimate" constituents of the sentence.
The described model of immediate constituents has two basic versions. The first is known as the "analytical IC-diagram", the second, as the "IC-derivation tree". The analytical IC-diagram commonly shows the groupings of sentence constituents by means of vertical and horizontal lines (see Fig. 5). The IC-derivation tree shows the groupings of sentence constituents by means of branching nodes: the nodes symbolize phrase-categories as unities, while the branches mark their division into constituents of the corresponding sub-categorial standings (see Fig. 6).
§ 3. When analysing sentences in terms of syntagmatic connections of their parts, two types of subordinative relations are exposed: on the one hand, obligatory relations, i.e. such as are indispensable for the existence of the syntactic unit as such; on the other hand, optional relations, i.e. such as may or may not be actually represented in the syntactic unit. These relations, as we have pointed out elsewhere, are at present interpreted in terms of syntactic valency (combining power of the word) and are of especial importance for the characteristic of the verb as the central predicative organizer of the notional stock of sentence constituents. Comparing the IC-representation of the sentence with the pattern of obligatory syntactic positions directly determined by the valency of the verb-predicate, itiseasy to see that this pattern reveals the essential generalized model of the sentence, its scmantico-syntactic backbone. For instance, in the cited sentence this pattern will be expressed by the string "The lady listened to me", the attribute small and the adverbial attentively being the optional parts of the sentence. The IC-model of this key-string of the sentence is logically transparent and easily grasped by the mind (sec Fig. 7).