 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
169
with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic (topical) unity, second, semantico-syntactic cohesion.
§ 2. The primary division of sentence sequences in speech should be based on the communicative direction
of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue sequences and dialogue sequences are to be
discriminated.
In a monologue, sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to his one or
several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be characterized as a one-direction sequence. E.g.:
We'll have a lovely garden. We'll have roses in it and daffodils and a lovely lawn with a swing for little Billy
and little Barbara to play on. And we'll have our meals down by the lily pond in summer (K. Waterhouse and
H. Hall).
The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian
linguists N.S. Pospelov and LA. Bulakhovsky. The former called the unit in question a "complex syntactic
unity", the latter, a "super-phrasal unity". From consistency considerations, the corresponding English term
used in this book is the "supra-sentential construction" (see Ch. I).
As different from this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the speakers-interlocutors in turn, so
that they are directed, as it were, to meet one another; the sequence of this type, then, should be characterized
as a two-direction sequence. E.g.:
"Annette, what have you done? "-"I've done what I had to do" (S. Maugham).
It must be noted that two-direction sequences can in principle be used within the framework of a monologue
text, by way of an "inner dialogue" (i.e. a dialogue of the speaker with himself). E.g.:
What were they jabbering about now in Parliament? Some twopenny-ha'penny taxi! (J. Galsworthy).
On the other hand, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, when a response utterance forms not a
rejoinder, but a continuation of the stimulating utterance addressed to the same third party, or to both speakers
themselves as a collective self-addressee, or having an indefinite addressee. E.g.:
ST. ERTH. All the money goes to fellows who don't know a horse from a haystack. - CANYNGE
(profoundly). And care less. Yes! We want men racing to whom a horse means something (J. Galsworthy).
ELYOT. I'm glad we didn't go out tonight. AMANDA. Or last night. ELYOT. Or the night before. AMANDA.
There's no reason to, really, when we're cosy here (N. Coward).
Thus, the direction of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the sentence-
sequence than its outer, purely formal presentation as either a monologue (one man's speech) or a dialogue (a
conversation between two parties). In order to underline these deep distinguishing features of the two types of
sequences, we propose to name them by the types of sentence connection used. The formation of a one-
direction sequence is based on syntactic cumulation of sentences, as different from syntactic composition of
sentences making them into one composite sentence. Hence, the supra-sentential construction of one-direction
communicative type can be called a cumulative sequence, or a "cumuleme". The formation of a two-direction
sequence is based on its sentences being positioned to meet one another. Hence, we propose to call this type of
sentence connection by the term "occursive", and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive
connection, by the term "occurseme".
Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that from the hierarchical point of view the occurseme as an element of
the system occupies a place above the cumuleme. Indeed, if the cumuleme is constructed by two or more
sentences joined by cumulation, the occurseme can be constructed by two or more cumulemes, since the
utterances of the interlocutors can be formed not only by separate sentences, but by cumulative sequences as
well. E.g.:
"Damn you, stop talking about my wife. If you mention her name again I swear I'll knock you down." - "Oh
no, you won't. You're too great a gentleman to hit a feller smaller than yourself" (S. Maugham).
As we see, in formal terms of the segmental lingual hierarchy, the supra-proposemic level (identified in the
first chapter of the book) can be divided into two sublevels: the lower one at which cumulemic connection of
sentences are identified, and the higher one at which occursemic connection of sentences are identified. On the
other hand, a fundamental difference between the two units in question should be carefully noted lying beyond
the hierarchy relation, since the occurseme, as different from the cumuleme, forms part of a conversation, i.e. is
essentially produced not by one, but by two or several speakers, or, linguistically, not by one, but by two or
several individual sub-lingual systems working in communicative contact.
As for the functional characteristic of the two higher segmental units of language, it is representative of the
function of the text as a whole. The signemic essence of the text is exposed in its topic. The monologue text, or
"discourse", is then a topical entity, the dialogue text, or "conversation", is an exchange-topical entity. The