Theoretical grammar of english

22. Classification of sentences based on the communicative purpose of the utterance (declarative, interrogative, imperative).
Бархударов singled out 3 types of sentences: declarative, interrogative, imperative sentences.
DECLARATIVE SENTENCES

semanticaily	structurally
express statements	they are unmarked type, i.e. display direct word-order: I love you. Sometimes inversion is used => more emphatic sentences.

Inversion:
1.Full inversion: Down the river came the boat with a
2. Partial inversion: In he came.

	• INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
Semanticaily they express questions => we expect a respond.
type of question	example	structure		intonation		answer
General	Are you rich?	are marked by		rising		provoke yes/ no
questions		partial		intonation		answer
		inversion
**Confirmative	Your name is	no inversion		are marked by		provoke
questions	Lera.			intonation alone		positive
				(rising)		answers (you
						expect
						confirmation)
Special	When will he	are marked by		usually a falling		require a full
questions	kiss me?	a question-word		tone (though an		answer
		(wh-wards)		intonation
		placed initially		pattern may be
		+ partial		different)
		inversion
**questions to	Who broke	no inversion		the same		the same
the subject or	your heart?
some port of it
MIXED TYPES:
1. Alternative	Are you a girl	a combination		rising tone +		require a full
questions	or a boy? (=	of 2 general		falling tone		answer
	Are you a girl	questions, that		(мне кажется...)
	or are you a	are usually
	boy?)	contracted into
		one
2. Tag-	You love me,		A declarative		the intonation		yes/ no + tag
questions	don't you?		sentence + a		of a tag is
			tag (ТАG = a		falling if the
			pronoun		speaker is
			corresponding		positive, rising
			to the subject		- if he doubts
			and + an
			auxiliary verb
			corresponding
			to the
			predicate)
3. Echo-	- He loves		nearly repeat		rising		yes/ no
questions	fucking.		the previous		intonation
	- He loves		statement
	fucking?
**special type	- John gave me		are generated		rising		a full answer
of echo-	a hug.		when the		intonation
questions	- Who did		hearer misses
	what?		some part of
			the statement

IMPERATIVE SENTENCES

semantically	structurally
Express commands. The notion of commands includes everything from polite requests to orders. They expect action response. Fuck off.	Are marked => they contain a special form of the verb = The imperative form (the base of the infinitive). They lack the subject and require a special intonation pattern.

EXCLAMATORY SENTENCES (some grammarians)
Are introduced by What/ How. Have no inversion.
What a noise they are making! - They are obviously enjoying themselves... This type in fact causes debate. Because the notion of exclamation rather refers to the intonation pattern implied.


22. Classification of sentences based on the communicative purpose of utterance (declarative, interrogative, imperative (and exclamatory)).
Simple sentences are divided into 4 syntactical classes, their use correlates with certain communicative functions.
1.) Declarative sentences-statements (+) or (-). This type is unmarked, follows the basic rules of building the sentence, according to the notion of fixed word order the first word-subject, the second -predicate. The marked form of declarative sentences is when inversion is employed. Inversion either full (Down the river came the skiers) or partial (In he came). If inversion is a stylistic device it shows that this sentence belongs to a literary style. If grammatical device -- to stress some part of info.
2.) Interrogative sentences a) General questions presuppose the '-'or '+' answer (yes or no-questions). They are marked (we invert grammatical inversion) and have a particular intonation pattern (arising tone). b) Special questions. They are marked by inversion. At the beginning of special question there is an interrogative pronoun or adverb (wh-questions).
Presupposes full answer. The intonation is fall. C) Alternative questions - a compression of 2 general questions. They presuppose full answers. d) Disjunctive questions. A tag-question is a unit of 2 elements: a declarative sentence & a short general question. They have a special intonation pattern. These are stylistically coloured when both parts are '+' or ‘-‘. Swan: ‘You are getting married after all, are you?’ a sign of personal involvement & genuine interest. If both parts are '-': U don't like my cooking, don't u?-an obvious sign of irritation. In fact, tag-question is not a question, but structurally it is.
3) Imperative sentences are marked by the absence of subject. (Speak louder!). Sometimes the subject is introduced but never in the first person (You speak louder!). Also marked by a peculiar form of the verb - the imperative of the verb which coincides with the stem of the verb.
!!!4) Exclamatory sentences are characterized by emphatic intonation, an exclamatory mark in writing and convey the speaker’s feelings. But there is one difficulty. Not all these sentences are purely exclamatory, they can belong either to declarative, or interrogative, or imperative ones ( ~ But he can’t do anything to you! What can he possibly do to you! Scarlet spare me! ), that’s why we should take into account that many linguists do not distinguish exclamatory sentences into a separate point of a classification.


23. Compound and complex sentences. Types of subordinate clauses.
composite sentences: compound (clauses have equal rights,they are coordinated); complex (clauses are subordinated)
Compound sentences
Coordination can be expressed either syndeticaliy or asyndetically.
Main semantic relations between clauses:
- copulative
- adversative
- disjunctive
- causal
- consequential
- resultative
The same relations can be found between sentences in a text => some grammarians think that compound sentences don't exist (it is "a sequence semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing"). Their arguments:
1). the possibility of a falling, finalizing tone between the coordinated predicative units
2). The existence in written speech of independently presented sentences introduced by the same conjunctions as the "coordinate clauses"
3) the "coordinate clauses" can be separated by a full stop while the semantic relations between them will be preserved
There is a semantico-syntactic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent sentences: -By means of different distributions of predicative units, different distributions of expressed ideas are achieved (Блох считает, что это "coordinative syntactic function in action")
- by means of combining or non-combining predicative units into a coordinative sentence we show the closeness or looseness of connections between the reflected events
Eg: N adored that actor. M could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the
infallibility of one's artistic judgment That aroused prolonged arguments.
We can arrange it a bit different:
N adored that actor, but M could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of
the infallibility of one's artistic judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.
If the "negative" theory of the compound sentence is correct, any coordinative rearrangements of the sentence must be indifferent to the sense of the sentence.
N adored that actor. But M could not stand the sight of him, each was convinced of the infallibility of one's artistic judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.
(PS к тому же some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in
the text, thus becoming independent sentences => but no one denies the existence of complex sentence)
Complex sentences
The problem of classifying subordinate clauses is one of the vexed questions of the syntactic theory.
There can be different principles of classification: we can classify clauses according to
their meaning and syntactical function.
By "meaning" we may bring either such notions as "statement/question" or a notion like "explanatory".
By "function" -> either the position of a clause within a complex sentence, defined on the same principles as the position of a sentence part within a simple sentence; or on the
analogy between a clause and a part of speech performing the same function in a simple
sentence.
What classification should be accepted as the most rational?
1. the one which draws a parallel between subordinate clauses and parts of speech is inconsistent (clauses and parts of speech resemble each other only in so far as both of them can perform certain functions in the sentence).
2. the one according to which declarative and interrogative clauses (subordinate statements and subordinate questions) are given as types isn't too good either: not every clause will fit into either of these categories {If he had been destitute and she had had money she would have given him all he wanted - is the clause declarative or interrogative?)
3. the classification based on the similarity of the functions of subordinate clauses with parts of the sentence
According to this classification the clauses are:
- subject (a complex which performs within a complex sentence the same function that the subject performs within a simple sentence)
- predicative
- object (hard to define; the easiest case=in which the subordinate clause can be replaced by a noun which would then be an object in a simple sentence)
- attributive (its function in the complex sentence is analogous to that of an attribute in a simple sentence; characterizes the thing denoted by its head word through some other action or situation in which that thing is involved)
- adverbial: