 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
134
sentence is transformed either into a semi-predicative construction (a semi-clause), or into a nominal phrase.
Nominal phrases are produced by the process of nominalization, i.e. nominalizing phrasalization which we
have analyzed before (see Ch. XX). Nominalization may be complete, consisting in completely depriving the
sentence, of its predicative aspect, or partial, consisting in partially depriving the sentence of its predicative
aspect. Partial nominalization in English produces infinitive and gerundial phrases. By other types of
phrasalization such semi-clauses are derived as complex objects of infinitive and participial types, various
participial constructions of adverbial status and some other, minor complexes. The resulting constructions
produced by the application of the cited phrasalizing procedures in the process of derivational combination of
base sentences will be both simple expanded sentences (in case of complete nominalization) and semi-
composite sentences (in case of various partial nominalizations and other phrasalizations). Cf:.
>On their arrival I was relieved of my fears. > They arrived to relieve me of my fears.
>
They arrived
relieving me of my fears.
>
Having arrived, they did relieve me of my fears. Etc.
As is seen from the examples, each variety of derivational combination of concrete sentences has its own
semantic purpose expressed by the procedures employed.
§ 6. As part of the predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as expanded
base-sentences, undergo such structural modifications as immediately express the predicative functions of the
sentence, i.e. the functions relating the nominative meanings of the sentence to reality. Of especial importance
in this respect is the expression of predicative functions by sentences which are elementary as regards the set of
their notional constituents: being elementary from the point of view of nominative semantics, these sentences
can be used as genuine, ordinary utterances of speech. Bearing in mind the elementary nominative nature of its
constructional units, we call the system of sentences so identified the "Primary Syntactic System" (Lat. "Prima
Systema Syntactica").
To recognize a primary sentence in the text, one must use the criteria of elementary sentence structure
identification applied to the notional constituents of the sentence, irrespective of the functional meanings
rendered by it. For instance, the notionally minimal negative sentence should be classed as primary, though not
quite elementary (kernel) in the paradigmatic sense, negation being not a notional, but a functional sentence
factor. Cf.:
I have met the man. > I have not met the man. > I have never met the man.
Any composite (or semi-composite) sentence is analysable into two or more primary sentences (i.e.
sentences elementary in the notional sense). E.g.:
Is it a matter of no consequence that I should find you with a young man wearing my pyjamas? < Is it a
matter of no consequence? + I should find you with a (young) man. + The (young) man is wearing my pyjamas.
The kernel sentence can also have its representation in speech, being embodied by the simplest sentential
construction not only in the notional, but also in the functional sense. In other words, it is an elementary
sentence which is non-interrogative, non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal, etc. In short, in terms of
syntactic oppositions, this is the "weakest" construction in the predicative oppositional space of the primary
syntactic system.
§ 7. The predicative functions expressed by primary sentence patterns should be divided into the two types:
first, lower functions; second, higher functions. The lower functions include the expression of such
morphological categories as tenses and aspects; these are of "factual", "truth-stating" semantic character. The
higher functions are "evaluative" in the broad sense of the word; they immediately express the functional
semantics of relating the nominative content of the sentence to reality.
The principal predicative functions expressed by syntactic categorial oppositions are the following.
First, question as opposed to statement. Second, inducement as opposed to statement. Third, negation as
opposed to affirmation. Fourth, unreality as opposed to reality. Fifth, probability as opposed to fact. Sixth,
modal identity (seem to do, happen to do, prove to do, etc.) as opposed to fact. Seventh, modal subject-action
relation as opposed to fact (can do, may do, etc.). Eighth, specified actual subject-action relation as opposed to
fact. Ninth, phase of action as opposed to fact. Tenth, passive action as opposed to active action. Eleventh,
specialized actual division (specialized perspective) as opposed to non-specialized actual division (non-
specialized perspective). Twelfth, emphasis (emotiveness) as opposed to emotional neutrality (unemotiveness).
Each opposition of the cited list forms a categorial set which is rather complex. For instance, within the
framework of the question - statement opposition, pronominal and alternative questions are identified with their
manifold varieties; within the system of phase of action, specialized subsets are identified rendering the phase
of beginning, the phase of duration, the phase of end, etc. The total supersystem of all the pattern-forms of a
given sentence base constitutes its general syntactic paradigm of predicative functions. This paradigm is,