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

particularly. 
The set of copy-clef sentences without explicit representation of a cross-event 
relation is build around structures consisting of a finite clause which represents a 
Ground-event, followed by a coordinating conjunction and a finite clause 
representing a Figure-event; e.g.: She stopped at the store, and she went home. 
L.Talmy interprets these structures as copy-cleft sentences in which a cross-event 
relation is structurally implicit, but is unspecified. Compare:
She stopped at the store, and she went home = She went home but/and first she 
had stopped at the store.
Further concern of the discussed sentence types is their ability to represent a 
particular type of cross-event relation. For example, complex sentences with 
subordinating conjunction can not be used for representation of the relations of 
“cause”, “additionality”, “substitution”.
To sum it all up: L. Talmy groups syntactic structures, which represent cross-
event relations, according to their formal properties which reflect conceptual-
syntactic regularities. The classification is based on the principle of Figure and 
Ground 
events 
representation. 
The 
Figure–Ground 
model 
of 
event 

---

154 
conceptualization is universal: it works as a general principle of producing 
different types of sentences. The Figure event is represented in the main clause of a 
complex sentence, and in the second constituent of a copy-cleft sentence. The 
Ground event is represented in the subordinate clause of a complex sentence, in a 
copy-cleft sentence it appears as the initial clause, and additionally within the 
second constituent of the sentence. (For details see: Talmy L. Toward a cognitive 
semantics. 2000).
One more sentence typology, proposed within a cognitive approach, has been 
introduced by J.R. Taylor. He has classed all the sentences into single clauses 
and constructions which are built as combinations of clauses. The main criterion 
for further division becomes the degree of integration between clauses. The merit 
of this classification is that it is based on correlation between formal syntactic 
properties of the sentences and processes of conceptual operations (basically, 
conceptual integration) which enable the creation of sentences.
The notion “clause” is understood by J.R. Taylor as a syntactic structure 
which designates a single process and should be distinguished from clause fusion – 
a case of clause combination, based on conceptual and syntactic integration, 
though both the structures reveal the “syntax of the simple sentence”. Compare: 
These cars are expensive. These cars are expensive to repair. The clause fusion 
construction can be “unpacked” into two independent clauses, designating two 
different processes.
J.R. Taylor starts with c l a u s e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n. The basic 
parameters of this classification are the structural and semantic characteristics of 
clauses, such as, the number of participants, the semantic role of the participants 
and their syntactic expression, kinds of situations (processes) that clauses 
designate, i.e. concepts (event types) represented by different kind of clauses.
According to the process type (event type) clauses are classed into those which 
designate: 
-dynamic processes, e.g.: The house collapsed. The telephone rang. 
- stative processes e.g.: The book is 200 pages long. The book is boring. The road 
follows the river. 
- cognitive processes (mental and perceptual processes), e.g.: I watched the film. 
The noise frightened me. I’m afraid of the dark. 
-complex processes (processes which are made up of 2 or more component 
processes), e.g.: Jane returned the book to the library. I broke the vase. 
(The analysis of complex processes in terms of component processes is justified in 
that it is sometimes possible to focus on just one component in contrast to the 
process in its totality, e.g.: I almost broke the vase. They didn’t elect Joe 
president.)
According to the number of participants clauses are classed into one-participant 
clauses (Intransitives), two-participant clauses (Transitives), three-participant 
clauses (Double-object clauses). J.R. Taylor addresses the semantic roles of