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

has five fingers. Thus, the instances of the linguistic level and rules of 
combinability of linguistic units are determined and somehow restricted by the 
hierarchy within the conceptual content. 
C o n c e p t u a l c o m b i n a t i o n a n d s y n t a g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s
In J.R. Taylor’s opinion there are 4 types of constructional schemas, 
according to the type of conceptual combination and therefore syntagmatic 
relation: constructional schemas with head-complement relation, schemas with 
head-modifier relation, schemas of appositional relation, schemas with parataxis. 
Accordingly there are 4 mechanisms for combining simpler units into more 
complex structures: complementation, modification, apposition, parataxis. 
H e a d – c o m p l e m e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s 
Head-compliment construction reveals head-complement relation. It means 
that its constituents bear the status of head and that of complement. Consider the 
example on the table. The preposition on in this expression designates spatial 
relation, that one of support and contact, and determines the profile of the complex 
concept [on the table]. It means that the semantics of the expression is relational in 
character, the table helps to specify on, which is initially rather abstract or 
schematic, as compared to the table. The polysemous on needs specification, 
which is achieved in the combination on the table. Both on and on the table 
designate the same relation, but with different degrees of specificity. On in the 
given expression is the head and the table is the complement. The head designates 
the same entity as the whole expression does, the expression bears the profile of 
the head. The complement elaborates an entity already present in the semantic 
structure of the head. The head is conceptually more dependent, it needs 
elaboration, the complement is more autonomous.
H e a d – m o d i f i e r c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s 

---

166 
Head-modifier construction reveals head-modifier relation. Consider the 
example the book on the table. The expression no longer profiles a relation , but a 
thing, namely, the book. In this case the expression bears the profile of the book, 
which is the head of the phrase, and on the table is a modifier. The modifier 
provides additional conceptual substance to the head. The head in this case is 
conceptually more autonomous, the modifier is more dependent.
Head and complement stand in a “closer” semantic relation to each other than 
head and modifier. It comes from the fact that in a head-complement construction
the complement is part of the expression’s profile; the complement is “intrinsic” to 
the profile. In a head-modifier construction the modifier is not part of the profile; 
the modifier is in a sense an optional extra.
Consider more examples: 
Joe left the office. Leave profiles a temporal relation. Leave combines with the 
office, which inherits the profile of leave. Leave the office combines with Joe, but 
the resultant expression again inherits the relational profile of leave the office. The 
expression designates an event of leaving, it does not designate Joe. The head of 
the expression is left, both the subject Joe and the direct object the office are 
complements. The proof that Joe also has the status of a complement is the 
alternative constituency - [Joe left] [the office] which is actualized in the 
following: Joe left, but everyone else entered, the office. 
The complements elaborate the schematic elements in the semantic structure of the 
verb (an entity capable of motion - Joe, a schematic container – the office).In this 
respect the analysis of conceptual constituents (conceptual combination), as 
head қcomplement or headқmodifier, correlates with the traditional analysis of
obligatory and optional valency of the verb (subject and the direct object realize 
the obligatory valency of the verb).
Consider more examples:
Father of twins. On the one hand, father (the head), like book in the expression 
book on the table, elaborates the semantic structure of of twins. Of twins is 
therefore a modifier of father. On the other hand, father, unlike book, is a 
relational noun: a father has to be the father of someone, whereas a book does not 
to be a book in a certain location. Of twins elaborates the semantic structure of 
father and for this reason takes on features of a complement. Thus, of twins 
exhibits features of both a modifier and a complement of father. Cognitive 
Grammar does not take the head-complement and the head-modifier relations to be 
mutually exclusive, we can simply say that the expression simultaneously satisfies 
the requirements of two different constructional schemas.
A p p o s i t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s 
In an appositional relation, each component designates one and the same 
entity, but does it in different ways. They combine to form a more elaborate 
conception of the entity. In the expression my neighbour, the butcher one and the 
same person characterized as “my neighbour” and also as “the butcher”. The 
person is characterized in terms of a relation to the speaker and in terms of his 
profession. 
Consider more examples: 

---

167 
Now, at midnight We were amazed, stunned, by the event. 
Tomorrow, Tuesday He ran – absolutely raced – up the hill. 
We, the people They sent him to Coventry, refused to speak to him.
In an appositional relation each of the components profiles one and the same 
entity. It is as if an apposition has two heads, each component contributes its 
profile to the expression.
There are cases which exhibit, for example, both apposition and modification 
as in the expression you, the butcher (the butcher can be viewed as a modifier, as it 
gives additional information), or apposition and complementation as in [The fact] 
[that the earth is flat] must be obvious to everyone ( that the earth is flat can be 
viewed as the complement of fact, as it is schematically present in the semantic 
structure of fact (a fact is necessarily a fact that something is the case).
Consider more examples: 
[The question][ what to do] is still unanswered. 
[The question] of [what to do] is still unanswered. 
 [The question] as to [what to do] is still unanswered.
Some syntactic phenomena need to be understood in terms of the apposition 
relation. For example, one of the semantic values of of. Consider the crime of 
shoplifting. One and the same entity is characterized, first, as a crime, and 
secondly, as shoplifting. Crime has a rather schematic profile, shoplifting is more 
fully specified. By virtue of apposition “the crime” is elaborated as “shoplifting” 
and “shoplifting is categorized as “a crime”.
Consider more examples: 
the Island of Madeira the thought of going there alone 
the State of California the question of where to go 
a feeling of despair the fact of his absence 
A similar situation holds in the following cases, where the first constituent is a 
so-called epithet. Consider a beast of a problem. The epithet has a highly 
schematic profile, with speaker attitude towards the profiled entity very prominent 
in the base. The second constituent elaborates the epithet’s profile. 
Consider more examples: 
an angel of a girl 
that bastard of a man
P a r a t a x i s c o n s t r u c t i o n a l s c h e m a s 
Parataxis relation can be viewed in linguistic expressions which are simply 
lined up, one after the other, with no conceptual integration. Clauses and sentences 
in the text can be lined up in this way. Consider I came, I saw, I conquered . The 
speaker could have chosen to overtly mark the relations between the clauses, by 
means of linking elements such as then and finally. Without these overt
connectors, the relations between the clauses have to be inferred by the hearer.

---

168