M. Iriskulov, A. Kuldashev a course in Theoretical English Grammar Tashkent 2008

III. The problem of classification of sentence according to the purpose of
communication.
Classification of sentences according to the purpose of communication has 
always been the subject to criticism and several modifications. Now it has become 
a tradition in grammar to distinguish three cardinal communicative types of 
sentences: 
the declarative sentence, the interrogative sentence, the imperative sentence. 
Some linguists suggested the 4
th
type of this classification – the exclamatory 
sentence (B. A. Ilyish , I.P. Ivanova). In modern linguistics however exclamatory 
sentences are not referred to as a separate communicative type since they can’t be 
opposed to the 3 cardinal types by regular grammatical means such as word – 
order, the use of special auxiliary forms. That is why the exclamation can not be 
considered as a principal of discriminating a communicative type of sentence. 
Some original classifications of sentence according to the purpose of 
communication were suggested by Charles Fries (for details see: Bloch M.Y. A 
Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - pp. 252-254), by G.G. Pocheptzov, L.P. 
Chachoyan and other linguists.
Thus, G.G. Pocheptzov discriminates in addition to proper types of sentences 
a group of sentences which convey no information and have no subject-predicate 
division. Among them – addresses: Jack, Nora! 
- interjectional sent.: Oh, well! 
- conversational formulas: Good morning! How are you doing?
Such like sentences have also been mentioned by Ch.Fries. He called them non-
communicative utterances. M.Y. Bloch calls them non-sententional utterances. 
L.P. Chachayan discriminates the communicative types and types of sentences. 
which express them. It makes the classification too detailed and complicated for 
practical purposes, though interesting from the theoretical point of view.

---

135 
G.G. 
Pocheptzov 
(see: 
Теоретическая грамматика современного 
английского языка, стр. 271-278) analyses sentences in the light of their 
pragmatic interpretation, i.e. from the point of view of their communicative 
intention. The sentences are used to express a certain speech action: request, 
suggestion, promise, threat, e.g. the declarative sentences can be used to express 
promise or threat, the verb-predicate in the Future-Tense- Form, e.g.: I will show 
you. What is still remained unsolved here is the problem of the exact system of 
pragmatic sentence types and means discriminating one type from another. And in 
this light the traditional classification remains the best one to follow.
M.Y. Bloch exposes the communicative properties of sentences in terms of the 
theory of the actual division of the sentence. He stresses that each communicative 
type is distinguished by its specific actual division patterns. The actual division 
features are revealed in the nature of the rheme of the sentence as the meaningful 
nucleus of the utterance. The declarative sentence immediately expresses a certain 
proposition. The actual division presents itself in the most complete form. The 
rheme of the sentence makes up the center of some statement as such. The 
question-test reveals the rheme, e.g.: The next moment she had recovered. - What 
had happened the next moment? . The imperative sentence does not express any 
proposition proper. It is only based on a proposition, without formulating it 
directly. The proposition in this case is contrasted against the content of the 
expressed inducement, e.g.: Let’s get it ready. (The premise: It is not ready.). Thus, 
the rheme of the imperative sentence expresses a wanted (or unwanted) action. The 
actual division of the interrogative sentence is determined by the fact that the 
interrogative sentence expresses an inquiry about information which the speaker 
does not possess. Therefore the rheme of the interrogative sentence, as the nucleus 
of the inquiry, is informatively open (for details see: Bloch M.Y. A Course in 
Theoretical English Grammar.- pp. 255-261).