 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
123
divisions) for the listener's choice; the question of the second type, as opposed to the polyperspective, should be
classed as the monoperspective alternative question, because its both varieties (implicit and explicit) express
only one informative perspective, which is presented to the listener for the existential yes-no appraisal.
§ 7. The exposition of the fundamental role of actual division in the formation of the communicative
sentence-types involves, among other things, the unequivocal refutation of recognizing by some linguists the
would-be "purely exclamatory sentence" that cannot be reduced to any of the three demonstrated cardinal
communicative types.*
*The existence of the "purely exclamatory sentence" is defended, in particular, by BA. Ilyish in his cited book (p. 186-187).
Indeed, by "purely exclamatory sentences" are meant no other things than interjectional exclamations of
ready-made order such as "Great Heavens!", "Good Lord!", "For God's sake!", "Fiddle-dee-dee!", "Oh, I say!"
and the like, which, due to various situational conditions, find themselves in self-dependent, proposemically
isolated positions in the text. Cf.:
"Oh, for God's sake! "-"Oh, for God's sake!" the boy had repeated (W. Saroyan). "Ah!" said Lady Mont.
"That reminds me" (J. Galsworthy).
As is seen from the examples, the isolated positions of the interjectional utterances do not make them into
any meaningfully articulate, grammatically predicated sentences with their own informative perspective (either
explicit, or implicit). They remain not signals of proposemically complete thoughts, not "communicative
utterances" (see above), but mere symptoms of emotions, consciously or unconsciously produced shouts of
strong feelings. Therefore the highest rank that they deserve in any relevant linguistic classification of "single
free units of speech" is "non-sentential utterances" (which is just another name for Ch. Fries's
"noncommunicative utterances").
Of quite another nature are exclamatory sentences with emphatic introducers derived on special productive
syntactic patterns. Cf.:
Oh, that Mr. Thornspell hadn't been so reserved! How silly of you! If only I could raise the necessary sum!
Etc.
These constructions also express emotions, but they are meaningfully articulate and proposemically
complete. They clearly display a definite nominative composition which is predicated, i.e. related to reality
according to the necessary grammatical regularities. And they inevitably belong to quite a definite
communicative type of sentences, namely, to the declarative type.
§ 8. The vast set of constructional sentence models possessed by language is formed not only by cardinal,
monofunctional communicative types; besides these, it includes also intermediary predicative constructions
distinguished by mixed communicative features. The true nature of such intermediary constructions can be
disclosed in the light of the actual division theory combined with the general theory of paradigmatic
oppositions.
Observations conducted on the said principles show that intermediary communicative sentence models may
be identified between all the three cardinal communicative correlations (viz., statement - question,
statement - inducement, inducement - question); they have grown and are sustained in language as a result of
the transference of certain characteristic features from one communicative type of sentences to another.
§ 9. In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same
time contains a distinet pronominal question:
"I wonder why they come to me about it. That's your job, sweetheart"-I looked up from Jasper, my face red
as fire. "Darling," I said, "I meant to tell you before, but-but I forgot" (D. du Maurier).
Semantico-syntactic comparison of the two utterances produced by the participants of the cited dialogue
clearly shows in the initial utterance the features inherently peculiar to the interrogative communicative type,
namely, its open rhematic part ("why they come to me about it") and the general programming character of its
actual division in relation to the required response.
Compare some more examples of a similar nature:
"But surely I may treat him as a human being." - "Most certainly not" (B. Shaw). "I don't disturb you, I
hope, Mr Cokane." - "By no means" (B. Shaw). "Wait a second, you haven't told me your address." - "Oh, I'm
staying at the Hotel du Phare" (A. Christie). "I should like to hear your views on that," replied Utterson (R.L.
Stevenson).
As is seen from the examples, utterances intermediary between statements and questions convey meanings
and connotations that supplement the direct programming of the answer effected by strictly monofunctional,