Akmaldinova O.M.,
Ph. D. (Philology), professor
Pysmenna O.O.,
Ph. D. (Philology), associate professor
System lexico-semantic relations in the structure
of an English sentence
In the late periods of the English language development shortened or
reduced sentences containing no finite forms of the verb have been widely used
in direct and represented speech as well as in descriptions. Such sentences
attract attention of learners, their syntactic nature being a part of syntax
learning.
Syntactic compression often finds it
way through the nominal indication of some process or action, through the use
of verbless means to represent logical and semantic relations in simple
sentences. Such formations are not only more economical syntactic variants but
they also acquire expressivity when giving evaluative statements. Expressive
means of language (verbless constructions inclusive) impart more convincingness
and vividness to the content of an utterance. Such structures are often used in
oral colloquial form of speech and in written fiction. They find rare usage in
journalistic and scientific texts. Their occurrence depends on the verb forms
dynamism, necessary stylistic expressivity, belonging to definite lexico-semantic
groups.
The dynamism of finite forms, their
role in predication and modality of sentences, the process of gradual weakening
of full lexical meaning of some verbs as a linguistic phenomenon has always
been of interest to those who professionally investigated the English language.
For example, in the middle of the previous century, Otto Jesperson gave the
following gradation of lexical meaning of verbs and syntactic bonds within a
sentence: There he sat, a giant among
dwarfs; He came back a changed being altogether; He married young and died
poor; The snow was falling thick; The natives go naked; The street ran parallel
with the beach; She stood godmother to his little boy; he seemed anxious; It
proved true; The more fool he!. Jesperson analyzed the above list as
follows: “ In the first sentence we have a description added to the main
sentence in extra-position, then come some instances of quasi-predicatives,
which lead up to real predicatives: these are found first with verbs which have
a full meaning of their own, then with “be”, which is practically devoid of
meaning and only serves to connect subject and predicative, and is therefore
called a link verb or copula, finally in the last sentence, there is not even a
link between the two elements. Even in this short survey we see… that some
verbs when connected with predicatives tend to lose their full meaning and
approach the function of an empty link.” [1]
As a result of the semantic weakening
of some verbs and concentrating of additional grammatical meaning in them these
verbs are not used if their grammatical meaning is defined by context or
situation.
Henry Sweet also stated that word
combinations without verbids may be equivalent to a sentence: The more, the
merrier. [2]
The grammatical structures in question
contain different types and shades of modality: modality of reality (nominal
sentences – Very quiet.); imperative modality (imperative sentences – Not a
word; No lies!); potential modality – He might have twenty years before him (here the possibility of the
phenomenon is signalled grammatically); A possible scandal! (the possibility of
the phenomenon is signalled lexically); modal meaning of condition (
represented by a nominal sentence, with the consequence expressed in a close
context – A word of complaint, and assuredly he would be done for.). Much more
material on the topic can be examined in a separate study. For example, among
the verbless imperative constructions the following structural types may be
pointed out: substantival – Attention!, To your seats; Careful, son; No parking
here!; Hush! etc.; evaluative – Shame!; The kindest creature; What infernal
luck!; How very strange!; Exactly so; How like the middle classes! etc.
Colloquial style structures of the
following types also deserve attention: you+
noun (You old silly; You mocking changeling!); noun/pronoun+ infinitive (One thing to tell the lie to support them
– quite another to deny everything); noun/pronoun
+adjective (And he – so unhappy; Your brother Ernest dead!); noun/pronoun+ participle 1 (Cold weather
coming on and no clothes; And her friends going up!); noun/pronoun + participle 2 (And all insured!;Anything broken?); demonstrative pronoun + noun (That – the
reason!; This your place?); noun/pronoun
+ adverb/prepositional phrase (The miserable task before him!; Ten minutes
to twelve, and a heavy train on platform one!; You up in town?; Anybody to
lunch?).
A separate group of sentences is
represented by structures giving characteristics to a thing or phenomenon by
its descriptive feature. One subgroup contains the models of the adjective + noun type (Too lugubrious a
triumph; Dangerous, those arguments); the other group is of noun + noun type (A terrible
responsibility, this girl; Remarkable type, their boss; Waste of money, a dog
like this). Adjectives can form sentences of the adjective + infinitive type ( Dreadful to have to wait over the
night; A thousand times better to accept what they had sent; How wonderful to
be here!).
In the English syntax, the tendency to
economy finds its expression in the use of short constructions with non-finite
forms of the verb and incomplete verb-forms, which is neither the result of
breaking the rules of normative use of full verb-forms, nor a specific stylistic
device. It has become a recognized norm (You going to make some alterations?;
All flourishing at home?; Going somewhere?; What you going to do with it?;
Winifred speaking.; Got a cigarette?; Anybody seen McLane?). The omissions
above have a regular form conditioned by the context and the situation of
speech, in which some auxiliaries (in their classical traditional
understanding) have disappeared in certain positions coming from definitely
substandard to the usual norm ( in some peculiar contextual environment).
Dialogical form of speech is
characterized by the regular use of incomplete structures, where missing
elements are clear from the context or situation and there is no need to
restore them. They should not be regarded only from the point of view of
absence or implication of finitive verb forms in them, for this is a syntactic
norm in the majority of cases. As a rule, insertion of supposedly dropped
members (“finites”) is not only unnecessary but also impossible, since it leads
to the change of the whole structure of the utterance and its stylistic colouring. Such phrase entities form replicas of question-answer unities. The
main sphere of their distribution is a living colloquial speech. In the works
of fiction it finds its immediate reflection in the characters’ speech,
represented speech, monologic form of speech characteristic of the style of
narration, descriptions and presentations, where a context and extra linguistic
situation are the factors promoting the formation of such structures. Very
often the structure of an answer depends on and is conditioned by the structure
of a question. Answers may contain additional information, reflecting its more
detailed content, assertion or negation, request for some more data. Thus, the
structure of replicas in question can be limited by a subject, an incomplete
verb-form of the predicate (participles I and II, predicative), constructions
without the subject and predicate (extended or unextended), interjections,
modal words-sentences, interrogative-negative forms etc., e.g.: No work? – No,
and pretty low; Married? – Widowed, two children; How long did that last? –
About a couple of years; Off into the sunshine?; Precisely; Exactly so; Up
those stairs, and third on the right; All the better; So far so good; Any
questions?; Your questions, if any; Anything more?; Well, doctor, what hopes?;
Why this sudden flash of fury?; Another little cup?; What about my report?;
Warm enough?; In there?; Where now?; Comfortable in that position? etc.
The examples cited represent a natural
phenomenon in some types of sentences, phrases or replicas peculiar to definite
styles of speech and illustrating the ways of grammatical variation in the
frames of formal and informal communication.
References:
1. O. Jesperson. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principals. Part
III, Syntax, vol. 2. – Copenhagen – London, 1949. – P. 356.
2. H. Sweet. A New English Grammar Logical and Historical. – Part I, §
112. – P. 451, 452.