 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
135
naturally, extremely complicated so that it is hardly observable if presented on a diagram. This fact shows that
the volume of functional meanings rendered by a sentence even at a very high level of syntactic generalization
is tremendous. At the same time the derivation of each functional sentence form in its paradigmatically
determined position in the system is simple enough in the sense that it is quite explicit. This shows the dynamic
essence of the paradigm in question; the paradigm exactly answers the needs of expression at every given
juncture of actual communication,
§ 8. All the cited oppositions-categories may or may not be represented in a given utterance by their strong
function members. In accord with this oppositional regularity, we advance the notion of the "predicative load"
of the sentence. The predicative load is determined by the total volume of the strong members of predicative
oppositions (i.e. by the sum of positive values of the corresponding differential features) actually represented in
the sentence.
The sentence, by definition, always expresses predication, being a predicative unit of language. But, from
the point of view of the comparative volume of the predicative meanings actually expressed, the sentence may
be predicatively "loaded" or "non-loaded". If the sentence is predicatively "non-loaded", it means that its
construction is kernel elementary at the accepted level of categorial generalization. Consequently, such a
sentence will be characterized in oppositional terms as non-interrogative, non-inducive, non-negative, non-real,
non probable, non-modal-identifying, etc., down to the last of the recognized predicative oppositions. If, on the
other hand, the sentence is predicatively "loaded", it means that it renders at least one of the strong oppositional
meanings inherent in the described categorial system. Textual observations show that predicative loads
amounting to one or two positive feature values (strong oppositional members) may be characterized as more or
less common; hence, we consider such a load as "light" and, correspondingly, say that the sentence in this case
is predicatively "lightly" loaded. As for sentences whose predicative load exceeds two positive feature values,
they stand out of the common, their functional semantics showing clear signs of intricacy. Accordingly, we
consider such loads as "heavy", and of sentences characterized by these loads we say that they are "heavily"
loaded. Predicative loads amounting to four feature values occur but occasionally, they are too complicated to
be naturally grasped by the mind.
To exemplify the cited theses, let us take as a derivation sentence-base the construction The thing bothers
me. This sentence; in the above oppositional sense, is predicatively "non-loaded", or has the "zero predicative
load". The predicative structure of the sentence can be expanded by the expression of the modal subject-action
relation, for instance, the ability relation. The result is: > The thins can bother me; the predicative load of the
sentence has grown to 1. This construction, in its turn, can be used as a derivation base for a sentence of a
higher predicative complexity, for instance, the feature of unreality can be added to it: > The thing could
bother me (now). The predicative load of die sentence has grown to 2. Though functionally not simple, the
sentence still presents a more or less ordinary English construction. To continue with our complicating it, we
may introduce in the sentence the feature of passivity: > I
could be bothered (by the thing now). The
predicative semantics expressed has quite clearly changed into something beyond the ordinary, the sentence
requires a special context to sound natural. Finally, to complicate the primary construction still further, we may
introduce a negation in it: > I
could not be bothered (by the thing now). As a result we are faced by a
construction that, in the contextual conditions of real speech, expresses an intricate set of functional meanings
and stylistic connotations. Cf;.
"...Wilmet and Henrietta Bentworth have agreed to differ already." - "What about? "-"Well, I couldn't be
bothered, but I think it was about the P.M., or was it Portulaca? - they differ about everything" (J. Galsworthy).
The construction is indeed semantically complicated; but all its meaningful complexity is linguistically
resolved by the demonstrated gemantico-syntactic oppositional analysis showing the stage-to-stage growth of
the total functional meaning of the sentence in the course of its paradigmatic derivation.
C H A P T E R XXVI
COMPOSITE SENTENCE AS A POLYPREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION
§ 1. The composite sentence, as different from the simple sentence, is formed by two or more predicative
lines. Being a polypredicative construction, it expresses a complicated act of thought, i.e. an act of mental
activity which falls into two or more intellectual efforts closely combined with one another. In terms of
situations and events this means that the composite sentence reflects two or more elementary situational events
viewed as making up a unity; the constitutive connections of the events are expressed by the constitutive