994.699
UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO
FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA
J. Tarnyikova
Chapters from Modern English Syntax (A Communicative Approach)
OLOMOUC 1993
-3-
CONTENTS
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION...........................7
CHAPTER ONE: THE SENTENCE AS A COMMUNICATIVE UNIT..........9
1.1 Communicative grammar...............................9
1.2 A communicative approach.............................10
1.3 Types of context....................................10
1.3.1 The scope of pragmatic context.......................11
1.4 Presuppositions....................................12
1.5 Communicative intention..............................13
1.5.1 Explicit vs. implicit intentions........................ 13
1.5.2 Primary vs. secondary intentions ...................... 14
1.5.3 Performative verbs.............................. 14
1.6 Co-operative principles................................ 15
1.7 Direct vs. indirect speech acts............................ 17
1.8 What is said and what is meant........................... 18
CHAPTER TWO: COMMUNICATIVE SITUATIONS AND THEIR COMPONENTS 19
2.1 Introduction......................................19
2.2 Components of a communicative situation.....................19
2.3 Communicative frames................................19
2.4 Language creativity..................................20
2.5 Constitutive rules...................................20
2.6 Encoding and decoding................................21
2.7 Choices in encoding..................................21
2.7.1 Analytical vs. synthetic............................22
2.7.2 Static vs. dynamic...............................22
2.7.3 Subjective vs. objective............................22
2.7.3.1 Direct vs. indirect attitudes.....................23
2.7.3.2 Evaluative attitudes.........................24
2.7.3.3 Modal attitudes...........................24
2.7.4 General vs. restricted validity........................26
2.7.5 Factive vs. non-factive............................27
2.7.6 Direct vs. indirect quotations ........................27
2.8 Choices in semantic coding .............................28
2.9 Addressee-* content.........................30
CHAPTER THREE: COMMUNICATIVE SENTENCE-TYPES.............32
3.0 Introduction......................................32
3.1 Statements (declarative sentences, declaratives).................34
3.2 Imperative sentences.................................36
-4-
3.2.1 Do-it-always vs. do-it-now imperatives...................37
3.2.2 Explicitly worded intention .........................37
3.2.3 Distributional vs. non-distributional commands..............37
3.2.4 Conditional imperatives...........................38
3.2.5 Whimperatives ................................39
3.3 Interrogative sentences................................40
3.3.1 Conducive questions.............................40
3.3.2 Why ask questions?..............................40
3.3.3 Types of questions...............................41
3.4 Optative sentences / wish-clauses..........................42
3.5 Exclamatory sentences (exclamations).......................42
3.5.1 Functional characteristics..........................42
3.5.2 Structural types................................42
CHAPTER FOUR: SENTENCE PATTERNS IN COMMUNICATION
(A Processing Strategy).........................45
4.0 Introduction......................................45
4.1 A survey of basic processes .............................48
4.1.1 Splitting ....................................48
4.1.2 Reduction...................................49
4.1.3 Composition..................................50
4.2 Types of reduction ..................................50
4.2.1 Substitution..................................51
4.2.1.1 Personal pronouns .........................52
4.2.1.2 Relative pronouns..........................56
4.2.1.3 Deictic (demonstrative) pronouns.................58
4.2.1.4 Possessive pronouns.........................60
4.2.1.5 Verbal pro-forms..........................61
4.2.1.6 Adverbial pro-forms ........................61
4.2.2 Deletion....................................62
4.2.2.1 Ellipsis................................62
A) Definition............................64
B) Classification..........................66
4.2.2.2 Elision ................................69
4.2.2.3 Non-realization...........................70
4.2.3 Condensation.................................72
4.2.3.1 Sentence condensers........................72
a) The infinitive...........................73
b) ING-condensers.........................78
(i) Participles .........................78
(ii) Gerunds ..........................79
4.2.3.2 Nominalization ...........................80
4.2.3.3 Absolute constructions.......................82
4.2.3.4 Quotational compounds......................83
4.3 Composition......................................84
4.3.1 Introduction..................................84
4.3.2 Linkage.....................................86
-5-
4.3.3 Coordination..................................88
4.3.3.1 AND ................................88
4.3.3.2 BUT................................ 91
4.3.3.3 OR ................................91
4.3.3.4 Coordination reduction.......................93
4.3.4 Subordination.................................94
4.3.5 The compound sentence...........................96
4.3.6 The complex sentence............................97
4.3.7 Ramification..................................98
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................102
GLOSSARY OF SYNTATIC TERMS...........................105
PART ONE: ENGLISH - CZECH.................105
PART TWO: CZECH - ENGLISH.................122
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
It is now some ten years since the first edition of this textbook was drafted and seven years since its publication. On re-reading my preface to the first edition, I have found many comments that are just as valid now as they were in 1985 and there is little to be added. Though it is true that many formal as well as functional models of syntactic description have been developed and there is a large research being undertaken in the the field of discourse/text analysis, the validity of a communicative approach for understanding the dynamic nature of real language use has not been denied.
This textbook has been written with undergraduate students in mind. It is primarily intended for intermediate students in English departments of Universities and Colleges of Education, either as a self-study book or as additional course material.
In accordance with what might be called communicative functionalism, it aims at familiarizing such students with the basic notions of a communicative approach to sentence analysis, so that they will be able to read with comparative ease the more advanced books and papers on the subject.
The approach applied in the textbook is dynamic in the sense that the primary aim is to draw students' attention to syntactic processes which underlie particular syntactic structures rather than to ready-made sentences or larger units, so that the students may be sensitive not only to sentence analysis in the traditional sense of parsing but also to the dynamic aspect of shaping sentence elements into the final form or forms in accordance with the communicative intention of the speaker or writer. The adopted approach seems to reflect more naturally processes parallel to concrete communicative situations.
The knowledge of basic syntactic notions, units, and their functions, is a necessary prerequisite here. In this respect our textbook is a modest supplement to the more important textbooks on English syntax by distinguished Czech anglicists, cf. e.g. A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic Basis by V. MATHESIUS (Academia Praha 1975), Rozbor nynější angličtiny III, by B. TRNKA (SPN Praha 1972), Mluvnice současné angličtiny II by I. POLDAUF (3rd ed. SPN Praha 1969), Selected Qiapters from English Syntax by J. VACHEK (SPN Praha 1974), Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny by L. DUŠKOVA et al. (Academia Praha 1988).
The textbook is divided into four chapters. Chapter One deals with the sentence as a communicative unit. Chapter Two is a description of communicative situations and their components. Chapter Three is devoted to the classification of sentences from the point of view of the communicative intention of the initiator of communication (speaker/writer). Chapter Four, the largest chapter of the textbook, is entitled Sentence Patterns in Communication and its aim is to describe the various processes underlying the shaping of a sentence as a part of discourse or a text.
Suggestions for further reading are given in the selected bibliography.
Appendixed is a Glossary of Syntactic Terms with English - Czech and Czech r- English sections.
An explicit contrastive method of description is used in some places to focus students' attention on major similarities and differences between English and Czech, relevant to the purpose of this book. Otherwise, a contrastive approach, having a long-lasting tradition in our linguistic writing and TEFL practice, is presupposed during the classes or seminars.
-8-
I make no claim to originality. The ideas expressed here are mostly those of other people. Only in some parts have I made use of results obtained during research. I apologize to the authors of original ideas, if I have in any way misinterpreted them in my attempt to make the ideas easily intelligible to students who have little prior knowledge of linguistics in this particular field.
I have much pleasure in acknowledging my indebtedness to our English lecturer Michael Stoddart B. A. for kindly having helped me to remove from the text as many curiosities of my English "idiolect" as was humanly possible.
Olomouc, 1993
Jarmila Tárnyiková
-SI-
CHAPTER ONE
THE SENTENCE AS A COMMUNICATIVE UNIT
1.1 COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR
What is communicative grammar about?
What do we understand by a communicative approach to syntax?
What consequences has the communicative approach upon sentence analysis?
Is it somehow different from the traditional analysis of sentences?
These are just a couple of the problems we would like to elucidate at the very beginning.
Imagine a person who has a very good command of English grammar. He has penetrated into the rules and regularities (as well as irregularities) of simple and composite sentence structures, into the use of elaborate condensed structures with infinitival, gerundial, and participial sentence condensers, and yet in common everyday communicative situations, he may sound ridiculous, owing, for instance, to the use of these complex and elaborate grammatical structures, or impolite, because he has violated a rule of appropriate choice between alternative grammatical structures in particular communicative situations.
In other words, he may not be sensitive enough to the differences between the grammatical structure of a sentence in written and spoken language, or - within the knowledge of the rules of spoken language - he may not be sensitive enough to the fact that the existence of a particular grammatical rule is one thing and its appropriate application - or choice in the case of grammatical alternatives - another.
Thus, for instance, the knowledge of the grammatical rule, according to which the English imperative is formed, does not equip him with a reliable device for issuing commands in those communicative situations in which his hearer is a person superior to him.
So our language user should have to possess the knowledge of the fact that, for example, "Pass me the salt" is or should be "softened" or "toned down" in the above situation into "Willi would you pass me the salt?", or at least to "Please, pass me the salt" or "Pass me the salt, please".
On the other hand, he must also be sensitive to the fact that the form of the imperative may be used indirectly, and that he (in the role of an addressee) is sometimes supposed to behave just in the way opposite to the speaker's "sarcastic offer"; cf. e.g. "Go and tell her, if you must", (Takjdi a řekni jí to, když musíš! = nechoď...), or "Believe him, after all'" (Pak mu věř! — Nedá se mu věřit.)
The imperative forms "Sleep well" or in Czech „Zlom vaz!" are used to express a wish, or in other situations to give advice, e.g. "Shake before use" - rather than issue a command. Or he may know the referential function of personal pronouns (e.g. John came late. He. was rather nervous, and asked for a cup of coffee. He = > John), but for its appropriate application he must also know the communicative "strategy" according to which pronom-inalization (i.e. the use of a pronoun instead of a noun/noun phrase) can be applied. If, for
-10-
example, there is a long distance between the governing noun and the pronoun referring to it, there is a danger of information "gap" on the side of the listener, which he tries to fill by asking for the appropriate referent (cf. Who do you mean by saying 'Tie"?).
Consequently, our language user will probably come to the conclusion that in the process of communication, in concrete communicative situations, the application of his general knowledge of the rules of English grammar is partly reduced, as far as the existence of particular rules and their corresponding language manifestation is concerned (cf. e.g. the avoidance of long and complicated sentence structures in everyday spoken language and the frequent use of these structures in written languages: differentiated as to the frequency of occurrence of this or that grammatical rule (cf. the frequent use of tag questions, verbless sentences, elliptical structures, short introductory sentences expressing personal attitudes of the type I think, I suppose, I'd rather say...) - and enriched with the existence of direct and indirect (or primary and secondary) functions of particular grammatical constructions.
And this is roughly what communicative grammar is about.
1.2 A COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
Now - what we understand by the "communicative approach to syntax".
Our starting point is the sentence as the basic communicative unit. Whenusing sentences in communication, we utter something about the world around us, about our judgements, our previous experience to which we want to add a new piece of information, about our confrontation with the extralinguistic reality, and the impact it has upon our actions, behaviour, etc. In this sense, the sentence as an abstract unit is moulded by various factors to become a concrete utterance, used in a concrete situation, with a concrete communicative function.
1.3 TYPES OF CONTEXT ( VERBAL, SITUATIONAL, PRAGMATIC )
As you know from your own experience, we do not usually use sentences in isolation. We use them as parts of larger communicative units (i.e. discourse/text). Consequently, the sentences are quite often influenced in their grammatical as well as semantic structure by the surrounding verbal or linguistic context.
We must also keep in mind that sentences are realized in particular communicative situations, where a sentence is often a linguistic response to non-linguistic behaviour (e.g. to gestures, a performed activity, etc.) In this case the interpretation of a sentence is influenced by its situational context.
To make the picture still more complete, we must also take into account the fact that there are situations in which a sentence can be interpreted (as far as its meaning and communicative intention are concerned) only with reference to our life experience or general knowledge of the universe. So, for example, when encountered with the utterance "The women are restless today. Full moon.". you are able to interpret (decode) the intended meaning of the second sentence {Full moon.) only if you are familiar with the assumption shared by many people, i.e. that the "full moon" influences human behaviour and is the cause of restlessness.
-11-
Knowledge of similar facts belongs to our empirical or pragmatic context, i.e. to our knowledge of the universe we share as members of a certain community, living in a particular part of the world, and storing in our memory our life experience.
Since the notion of pragmatic context is not so current as the "verbal" or "situational" contexts are, we would like to explain it in detail now.
We shall begin with a simple illustrative example.
A man is saying about his son: "Well, this is our little Einstein". Taking the utterance as a direct speech act, with nothing hidden behind it, the listener would come to the conclusion that e.g. "the name of the boy is Einstein", or "the family name is Einstein". Knowing, however, at the same time that the name belongs to a man of world-wide reputation, he rather concludes: "by uttering the sentence the man wants me to know that his son is clever, gifted, talented, etc.".
The implicit evaluation (i.e. "gifted, talented...") presupposes that you, in the role of an addressee, are "civilized" and "educated" enough to add the necessary piece of information to be able to understand what he meant by what he said. The same holds true of even simpler facts of life.
If, for example, you ask your friend "Shall we go for a walk?" and the answer is "The sky is cloudy." you are presupposed to deduce something like "I'd rather stay home, it's going to rain", etc. And you accept his response as an answer to your question, because you share with your friend the same life experience, i.e. that when the sky is cloudy it is usually the symptom of coming rain.
Our knowledge of the universe, or, in short, pragmatic (empirical) context, consists of heterogeneous items associated with man and his relation to nature, to the society he lives in, to human civilization in general, tradition, culture, to his social roles at the generally accepted "human stage" (authoritative, non-authoritative), etc.
These relations and confrontations are also accompanied by generally shared judgements, attitudes, and evaluations.
1.3.1 THE SCOPE OF PRAGMATIC CONTEXT
The extent (scope) of pragmatic context is dynamic. There seems to be a relatively stable "core" of generally shared experience, surrounded by a temporarily or locally restricted experience, i.e. experience shared at some period only, or by some communities only. Compare, e.g. the association with Hašek's Good Soldier Švejk and the generally shared knowledge of the qualities encoded in the Czech verb "švejkovat".
The influence of the mass media upon our shared knowledge of the universe is also apparent.
Thus in a recent Czech TV series "Nemocnice na kraji města " (Hospital at the periphery), the "would-be" Doctor Cvach, boasting on every occasion but unable to perform a simple operation by himself, has become a symbol of "would-be" doctors, or doctors with no reputation - and as such is generally accepted. Accordingly, you can hear people complaining of their health-centre doctor "Co chceš od takového Cvacha?" (What do you expect of such a Cvach?). The evaluation "hidden" in the name will most probably weaken or
-12-
disappear altogether when the TV series is forgotten. In this sense the matrix of experience may be "temporarily restricted".
On the other hand, the heroes of books by classic authors may become symbols of some qualities inherited from generation to generation, e.g. You are my Romeo. = You are my true lover.
Differences in our knowledge of the universe and especially in their hierarchy within an individual, are e.g. apparent from the following answers of seven-year-old children to the question "Where does milk come from?"   - You pay for it.
- Factory.
- From cows.
- Milkman.
1.4 PRESUPPOSITIONS
Knowledge of the universe influences our communicative strategies, i.e. whenever we speak, we make assumptions about the knowledge we share with our listeners. Such assumptions which affect our use of language are called presuppositions. Even a very simple sentence may include a number of presuppositions, e.g. Alan's wife works for the state of Michigan, includes the following presuppositions (and perhaps many more):
1. A person named Alan exists.
2. The listener knows Alan.
3. Alan is adult male.
4. Alan is married.
5. Alan's wife is alive, (cf. the use of present tense form "works")
6. There is a state named Michigan.
7. Michigan has employees.
(After J. Falk, 1978:267-268)
To give you a simpler example:
Even Susan could swim the length of this pool, implies our presupposition that Susan is not a very good swimmer. Therefore it would be inappropriate to say Even Susan, who wor\ a gold medal in swimming, could swim the length of this pool. Similarly,
Cut us another slice of bread. - presupposes beside other things that the addressee has already cut one slice of bread, or that the speaker has already had at least one slice of bread (cf. the presence of "another" in the sentence).
Fig. 1 is a scheme of the sentence as a contextually bound unit.
CONTEXT
verbal situational pragmatic
(linguistic) (non-linguistic) (non-/linguistic)
			
	seni	:ence	
-13-
1.5 COMMUNICATIVE INTENTION
The shaping of a sentence as a communicative unit into its final structure, however, is influenced above all by the communicative intention of the initiator of the utterance (speaker/writer). The intention is usually called the Ulocutionary force (IF, výpovědní síla) and is manifested in the sentence realization as a choice among several possibilities, i.e. to inform his addressee about some activities, events, judgements, attitudes, etc., or to ask his addressee a question by which he (beside other things we will deal with in detail later) wants to have his information "gap" filled. In other circumstances, he issues a command to his addressee in order to make him perform particular actions, behave in a particular manner, etc. If the real state of affairs does not correspond with his desire, his intention may be to express a wish. There is still another, though hierarchically rather different intention, i.e. to let the addressee know that you are surprised by the degree of quality, non/existence, non/occurrence etc. of some actions or states, or, in short, to express surprise.
Fig. 2 is illustrative of the above description
COMMUNICATIVE INTENTION
fo convey to seek to issue to express to express
information      information a command a wish surprise
(statement)       (request) (command) (wish) (exclamation)
					
		sen	tence	ř	
Influenced by the above-mentioned speaker's (writer's) choice among various communicative intentions, the sentence as a communicative unit has the form of a statement (or a declarative sentence), e.g. Gerald Middleton was a man of mildly but persistently depressive temperament., of an interrogative sentence (When does the performance begin? Have you ever been to England?), an imperative sentence (Don't make such a noise.). an optative (wish) clause (Oh. to be in England once again,f I wish I knew him better.), and an exclamatory sentence, or shortly, an exclamation (How lovely your daughter is! To read a detective storv at the age of seven!) As to the exclamations, we will see later (cf. Chapter Two) that they are formally rather "parasitic" (being as it were parasites on other sentence types), though functionally different, because there is an additive intention in them, i.e. that of expressing surprise.
1.5.1 EXPLICIT vs. IMPLICIT INTENTIONS
Sometimes, the communicative intention is implicit, i.e. it is not explicitly worded in the utterance (cf. the previous examples), at other times, however, the utterance itself directly signals our intention to the listener: e.g.
Stand up.
I command you to stand up. (explicit)
-14-
Similarly,
John did read the book. - Jenda opravdu tu knihu četl.
I tell vou that John did read the book - Říkám ti, že Jenda opravdu tu knihu Četl. Or,
Are you going to Hereford? (implicit)
I ask you whether you aregoingto Hereford, (explicit way of conveying speaker's intention) Oh, to be in England, (implicit)
I wish I were in England! (explicit, cf the presence of the verb "to wish")
Beside the basic illocutionary forces, also referred to in traditional coursebooks as the
"syntactic category of Mood", there are also more specific illocutionary forces, such as
"promise", "threat", "apology", "recommendation", etc.
1.5.2 PRIMARY vs. SECONDARY INTENTIONS
As there are more communicative intentions (and consequently illocutionary forces, hereafter IF's), than communicative sentence types, one sentence type (e.g. a statement, an interrogative sentence, etc. can be used to express various IF's according to the situation in which it is used. Cf. e.g.
It's cold outside.
It is a statement with the primary IF to inform the listener about the situation outside. According to the communicative situation in which it is used, it may be
a threat, i.e. my intention is something like "I could throw you out if you don't behave";
a promise.i.e. "I could take you out of this overheated room"
a suggestion, i.e. "We don't know whether to take coats", or
a request, i.e. "I want you to lend me a coat".
(After Hudson, 1975:2)
1.5.3 PERFORMATIVE VERBS
On the other hand, there are sentences restricted only to one IF because of the presence in them of special verbs, known as performative verbs, or simply - performatives. They represent a special category, functional especially from the point of view of a communicative approach to syntax. By using the performatives, we at the same time perform the communicative intention explicitly worded by the verb. To give you some examples:
I pronounce vou man and wife.
I name the ship Victoria.
I sentence you to death.
I congratulate vou on your birthday.
By uttering these sentences, you (if qualified) perform the act of e.g. marrying a couple, giving a name to a ship , or sentencing somebody to death.
For a verb to function as a performative, however, some conditions must be satisfied: the initiator of the utterance must be the speaker himself (cf. the presence of the 1st person sg. pronoun "I"), the tense of the verb must be present, the mood indicative (i.e. He. pronounced, you man and wife - is a mere statement with no performative force).
Finally, we would like to point out that the communicative intention of the speaker may be interpreted differently by the potential listeners, owing to their different life experience, or different life situation, e.g.
I'll call the police.
may be interpreted as a "promise" by people who are in danger of being robbed, and a "threat" by a thief.
1.6 CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES
The semantic as well as grammatical structure of a sentence is also influenced by what might be called co-operative principles (sincerity conditions, or "maxims"). These principles are shared by both the interlocutors, and their language "materialization" contributes to a "happy situation of communication". The speaker is supposed to structure the utterance so that the listener can deduce the communicative intention with relative ease and behave / in an appropriate way. The speaker at the same time believes that the listener believes that what is uttered is true, and relevant to the particular situation, that the new pieces of information are really structured as new or highlighted, with corresponding segmental and suprasegmental prominence, etc. These co-operative principles are used rather intuitively, and we realize their existence especially when they are somehow violated.
Such a violation is felt as a disturbing factor. Thus, for example, if I ask you what time it is, you will expect that I am sincere in my question and that I do not know the answer. I will expect you to answer and to answer truthfully. Furthermore, you must respond appropriately (you may not say "It rained yesterday at the same time.") and at reasonable length (i.e. you will not describe in detail the working of the hands on your watch, etc.).
The diplomacy of inter-human relations can, beside other ways, be also manifested as a purposeful violation of co-operative principles. Cf. e.g. the many life situations in which you, as a listener "pretend" you cannot recover the communicative intention of the speaker (especially when he is imposing his authoritative social role and you are not willing to accept it). Cf.
The windows are dirty.
- Yes, they are. But look at the beautiful flowers outside.
You may have recovered the indirect command but pretend you understand the utterance as a mere statement with the communicative intention "to be only informed".
In other communicative situations the misunderstanding or disturbance of "happy conditions of communication" may be caused by the fact that the presuppositions applied by the speaker are not shared by the listener. Cf.
What gre ypu thinking about?
- Who says I'm thinking? You are playing with your hair.
- That doesn't mean anything.
-16-
A typical example of misunderstanding is a wrong strategy of reference, especially witl children. Cf.
Child:   WTiv does that one come out?
Parent: That what?
Child:  THAT one.
Parent: That what?
Child:   That ONE.
Parent: That one what?
Child:   That lever there that you push to let the water out.
Knowledge of the "disturbing effect" of inadequate reference is made use of as a prerequisite of unwanted jokes. Compare e.g. the following extract from " The Autumn Garden" by Lillian Hellman:
Rose (Gets up from her chair. She finds silence uncomfortable and breaks into song "We Stroll the Lane Together").
Now, where is it? Everything's been so topsy-turvy all evening. If I can't have it immediately after dinner then I just about don't want it. At home you can bet it's right waiting for us when we leave the dining room, isn't it, Ben? Too bad it's Thursday. I'd almost rather go and see him than go to the party. (To Mrs. Ellis.) I think it's what keeps you awake, Mrs. Ellis. I mean a little is good for your heart, the doctor told me always to have a little, but my goodness the amount you have every night.
Mrs. Elli s (pleasantly). Would you mind telling me what you are talking about, Mrs. Griggs? You said if it wasn 'tfor the party you 'dgo and see him, but you thought I drank too much on a Thursday.
Rose (giggles). Coffee. I mean you drink too much coffee.
Mrs Ellis. Then it is coffee you wish to go and see?
Rose Now, now. You are teasing. You know very well I mean Robert Taylor in that thing.
Mrs Ellis Believe me, I did not know you meant Robert Taylor in that thing. You know, General Griggs, after seven summers I have come to the conclusion that your wife considers it vulgar to mention anything by name. There is nothing particular genteel about pronouns, my dear. Coffee is coffee and not it, Robert Taylor is Robert Taylor and not his, I suppose, and a fool is a fool and not her.
Rose (pleasantly). I know. It's a naughty habit. Ben has been telling me for years.
The following Fig. 3 has an illustrative character and the number of co-operative principles is far from complete. »
FjjlI
CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES
be sincere speak to the point be perspicuous be polite
sentence
1.7 DIRECT vs. INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS
As mentioned before, another factor that should be taken into account is the "diplomacy of inter-human relations", which finds its way of manifestation in the choice of language devices in general, and of the sentence structuring process in particular. You know that for various reasons we do not use direct ways of expressing our intentions but rather indirect ones. This gives us an opportunity to partially hide what we really have in mind, i.e. to apply the double strategy of saying and meaning.
Compare the examples of imperative usage in the previous sections or the following mini dialogue illustrative of an indirect request:
Husband." Oh, if you 're looking for a little job...
Wife:       What's that?
Husband: A little spillage. My fault.
You may well ask why we say it then when what is said is not what is meant. Well, it is only partly so, because the dual role of speaker and addressee, interchanged in communication, has taught us to apply the presupposition that the speaker when saying something may mean something else. And we have adopted the principle quite willingly because it contributes to communicative ease in many life-situations especially to those people who are afraid of being caught by the word. It is once again the role of the context, as well the knowledge of other factors, such as relation to the speaker, his social role (authoritative, non-authoritative), etc. that enable us to deduce that something more is "in the air".
When we discuss sentences in this way, referring to actual utterances in particular circumstances, we are considering concrete speech acts. Consequently, when the speaker uses a direct way of informing his addressee about his communicative intention, he performs direct speech acts (přímé mluvní akty). When the way is indirect, an indirect speech act is said to be realized.
To give you an example: when saying "Clean the windows" - you perform a direct speech act (i.e. that of issuing a command) and you have chosen a linguistic form primarily serving the purpose (i.e. an imperative) and a sentence type (imperative sentence) primarily enabling the performance of the intention.
On the other hand, when saying "The windows are dirty." to a person responsible for the cleaning, you, besides uttering the fact that the windows are dirty, issue an indirect command, which is accepted as such, if you are a person with an authoritative social role.
Thus a statement or declarative sentence was used in a secondary or peripheral function here, because the primary function is to inform the addressee. This relationship between the speaker and the addressee/s in a given situation (often characterized by greater or lesser formality), is called tenor (cf. LEECH et al. 1982, p. 9); cf. the following Fig. 4.
All the factors we have mentioned so far (and perhaps many more still unknown) extend the traditional approach to syntax by enriching it with the dimension called pragmatics. This means that the intention of the speaker, knowledge of the universe shared by both speaker and listener, expectations of the participants in conversation, co-operative principles applied in communication, etc. have b^^p^gíí of syntactic analysis.
-18-
Fig. 4
DIPLOMACY OF INTER-HUMAN RELATIONS
indirect way
direct speech acts
indirect speech acts
COMMUNICATIVE INTENTION
sentence
1.8 WHAT IS SAID AND WHAT IS MEANT
In this sense pragmatics enables us to penetrate into what is "behind" the sentence when it becomes an utterance, what is meant when something is said/written, and especially, what one is presupposed to know to be able to understand what L£ really meant. The pragmatic dimension enables us to analyze language in action, language in situation. It also enables us to become familiar with various communicative strategies and make effective use of them.
Accordingly, the sentence as the basic communicative unit is a dialectical unit of information and situation, and as such serves various communicative purposes when becoming an utterance.
Fig. 5 is an illustration of the distinction made between sentence and utterance.
Fi^i
context intention
co-operative principles diplomacy of interaction
sentence
utterance
-19-
CHAPTER TWO
COMMUNICATIVE SITUATIONS AND THEIR COMPONENTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the production of sentences is a human activity with significant cognitive, social, and linguistic aspects. Every act of communication, i.e. every message about some state of affairs selected from extra-linguistic reality, is realized in a particular communicative situation. In this sense, every act of meaning has a "context gf situation", within which it is performed and interpreted. For communication to take place, it is necessary for those who are interacting, i.e. (the participants of communication, or in short, "interlocutors") to be able to make intelligent and informed guesses about what kinds of meaning are likely to be exchanged. They can do this on the basis of their interpretation of the significance of particular communicative situations.
In the following section, we would like to describe the various components of a communicative situation and their relationships.
2.2 COMPONENTS OF A COMMUNICATIVE SITUATION
Every communicative situation presupposes those who are interacting, i.e.participants in communication.
In spoken communication the initiator of the act of communication is the speaker, who selects a particular content he wants to utter to his addressee (listener/hearer). This is done with a particular communicative intention in mind, in a particular language code and linguistic form, and in a particular situation. As" you know, spoken language used in face-to-face situations makes use of many "non-verbal" movements such as gestures and facial expressions (cf. body language). On the telephone, however, the visual channel is not available, so that, for example, head-nodding is substituted (compensated for) by "Yes",
il.   . ii     U-w (Í ,
Mm. , I see. , etc.
In written communication the initiator of the message is the writer, while the person addressed is the reader. The effect of suprasegmental features (intonation, stress, rhythm), typical of spoken communication is compensated for only partially, for instance, by graphic means, such as punctuation marks, different types of letters in case of a stressed word, etc. Since the addressee is not usually present, he cannot respond immediately, and this has an effect on the form of the message.
2.3 COMMUNICATIVE FRAMES
These components of a communicative situation (cf.for instance in the case of the spoken channel: "X says something to Y in a certain situation, with a certain intention, and in a particular way") - are supposed to represent basic communicative frames (rámce), into which utterances, as communicative units, are embedded (cf. Fig. 6).
-20-
Fig. 6
content
+ code + form
+ intention + situation
._. listener reader
COMMUNICATIVE FRAME
2.4 LANGUAGE CREATIVITY
All the speakers of a language function in a dual role as speakers and hearers, and many language users perform the roles of writers and readers. Underlying all four of these roles, is the commonly shared knowledge of language function and language structure.
One of the fundamental aspects of language that must be accounted for by any grammar dealing with the communicative approach, is its creativity. Every human language is a creative system in that the system enables its users to produce and comprehend new sentences which a particular speaker may have neither produced nor heard in the past. In this sense a linguistic system is infinitely productive, for the range of possible sentences in a language is truly infinite.
2.5 CONSTITUTIVE RULES
How is it, then, that language users are capable of dealing with a potentially infinite number of sentences?
What do they know about their language that enables them to do this?
You know from your own experience that we do not memorize all the sentences we use. Instead, we must know some finite sets of principles and/or rules, which produce an infinite number of sentences. The rules of a language actually constitute that language, i.e. we cannot, for example, haphazardly combine words and expect to produce a sentence. We must follow the rules that constitute the principles of sentence formation if we are to produce a well-formed utterance rather than a mere series of unrelated words. If you take it more generally, many of our activities are governed by such rules. In games - cards, dice, etc. are mere objects. They become "instruments" of a particular game only when used according to a set of rules. The rules that are essential for the very existence of particular activity or phenomenon are called constitutive rules.
In this sense, linguists are concerned with the constitutive rules of human language which represent the linguistic competence of language users. , , i-yin^a
2.6 ENCODING AND DECODING
The application of appropriate rules in given communicative situations is called linguistic performance.
Thus the speaker, having selected a particular "content", uses a particular linguistic "code" by means of which he "shapes" the content into a "form" acceptable to his addressee; i.e. he (beside other things) applies the knowledge of particular grammatical rules of sentence structure shared by both the interlocutors.
The process by which the content is shaped into a linguistic structure is called encoding (kódování), while the process by which the addressee deduces the content from the linguistic structure (either heard or read) is called decoding (dekódování). Both the processes are apparent from Fig. 7.
Fig. 7
speaker writer
encoding
content
content
decoding
addressee
2.7 CHOICES IN ENCODING
The choice of alternative encodings is part of the speaker's (writers) conceptualizing activity (pojmové ztvárnění obsahu sdělení) influenced by the purpose of the discourse or portion of discourse being formed. Cf. for example the situation string "A MAN OPENING THE DOOR WFTH A KEY", which can be encoded in various ways. Presumably, when the speaker chooses to say " The man opened the door with the key." he may be interested in introducing an agent ("the man ^into his utterance though he is not focussing on him. If he chooses, however, to say "The key opened the door." - he suppresses his interest in the man who turned the key.
Similarly, if he chooses to say " The door opened." - especially with such addition as "The door opened slowly and silently.". he is focussing on the door itself, or the manner of its opening.
Different images may be used to express even the most concrete situations, whether due to linguistic convention or the speaker's option. Compare, e.g.
The clock is on the table.
The clock is standing on the table.
The clock h lying on the table.
-22-
2.7.1 ANALYTICAL vs. SYNTHETIC
The semantic representation of these sentences is not fully identical, the differences reflect different ways of construing the same situation for purposes of linguistic rendition.
When encoding our experience of the processes of the external world, as well as the processes of the internal world of our consciousness, we may tend to view them rather analytically (cf. Padá déšť, in Czech - The rain is falling.) or synthetically, i.e. as a single unanalyzable process (Prší.)
2.7.2 STATIC vs. DYNAMIC
These reflections may be either static or dynamic in nature: cf. They are married. - Jsou svoji. vs. They got married. - Vzali se. Similarly, He is ill. - Je nemocen, vs. He fell ill. -Onemocněl.
As there is no strict borderline between what is static and what is dynamic in character, even the qualities maybe thought of as temporary ( and in this sense more dynamic) features of a substance, e.g.
You are silly, vs.
You are being silly, (temporary, dynamic)
This dynamic vs. static distinction manifested here as the distinction between "states" and "processes/activities", finds its reflection also at the functional sentence perspective (FSP) level - as a distinction between semantic structures viewed statically and semantic structures viewed dynamically. As FIRBAS (1981:97) puts it:
" Under different contextual conditions sentence elements will continue to express the same "dictionary" meanings, but not necessarily perform the same functions in the course of the development of the communication. This illustrates the differences between what has been called static semantics and dynamic semantics here."
Compare also his example with the different distribution of communicative dynamism (CD) and consequently different contextual dependence of "PETER" in Peter came into the room, if it serves a) as a reply to "Who came into the room" or b) as a reply to "What about Peter then?" - In this sense "Peter" is "dynamic" in a) and "static" in b).
2.7.3 SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE
In the process of encoding, the initiator has a choice between subjective and objective presentations of the content. In the first case, he, as it were, embeds the utterance into the subjective frame of evaluative modal and
emotional attitudes. ■ —
E.g. Unfortunately, he did not arrive. You must have known her. For Christ's sake, don't touch it.
These evaluative, modal, and emotional expressions can be used in isolation (cf. the examples above), though more frequently, there is an interplay of two or more of them:
-23-
Cf.
Oh God, how can you say such a foolish thing!
emotional modal
evaluative
(Jak můžeš proboha říct takovou pitomost!)
The emotional attitude may also result in psychologically influenced structures reminding us of "split" utterances (see Chapter Four), e.g.
Peter. What?
Simeon. Jenn. My woman. She died.
2.7,3.1 DIRECT vs. INDIRECT ATTITUDES
Besides the directly expressed attitudes (cf. also Oddly, she is much happier at her job than the rest of us.), we quite often encounter indirect expressions of the speaker's/writer's attitudes which can be disclosed only owing to our experience (cf. the pragmatic dimension mentioned in the previous sections). Compare, e.g.
You must think I was born yesterday.
(Jistě si myslíš, že jsem včerejší.)
My act of rebellion would be absorbed like rain on an ocean and leave no trace. (Moje vzpoura by zanikla jako kapka v moři, beze stopy.)
Similarly
You've got as much feelings as a dried-up tea-bag.
(Máš v sobě tolik citu jako vyždímaný pytlík čaje. = jsi bezcitný)
In the following example, it is again our experience with some evaluative formulae that enables us to disclose the additive evaluative meaning:
All hell's been let loose in there. = It was horrible there.
Sometimes the evaluative attitude is what we would like to know from our addressee,
Is that wrong of me? To want to see you happy?
Similarly in negated questions of the type
Not much here to eat, is there? - Není tu moc k snědku, co? (= hospodyně za nic nestojí, jsou skoupí, apod.)
In an objectively-oriented message the utterance has the character of generally accepted, apparent, or known facts shared by people in general, e.g. Paris is the capital of France., or shared by particular groups of people, such as e.g. pupils of the same classroom in the following example
e.g.
-24-
John is absent today.
The following Figure 8 illustrates the choice on the side of the initiator of communication. Fig. 8
speaker---------content
objective subjective-
evaluative—, modal emotional
— attitudes-
explicit implicit
2.7.3.2 EVALUATIVE ATTITUDES
The evaluation may proceed from the "evaluator" (the initiator of evaluation) to an "effector" (an entity evaluated), e.g.
Tom enjoys detective stories.
(Ev)------------(Eff)
Or the evaluation may proceed from the effector to the evaluator, e.g.
Detective stones appeal to Tom.
(Eff)------------(Ev)
Evaluation may itself be subject to evaluation. Cf. e.g.
[Giles so selfish] shocked me dead = >
It shocked me dead that Giles could be so selfish.
(Here "so" expresses the reference to "degree".)
For details see POLDAUF. 1968:1 -12.
Implicit evaluation is also "encoded" in the so-called emotional use of the progressive, cf.
Who is he loving now, (in reference to a very fickle individual). Similarly,
She is always breaking things. - Pořád něco rozbíjí!
2.73.3 MODAL ATTITUDES
As to the encoding of modal attitudes, there is basically a choice between two types of language modality that can be manifested in the utterance. First, it is the so-called epistemic (complex, extra-propositional) modality by means of which the speaker expresses various degrees of certainty (possibility, probability), which are the result of his logical judgement, or deduction (cf. „modalita jistotní" in Czech). Thus, for example, according to the curious behaviour of a man you are watching, you can come to the logical conclusion
He must he crazy.
What you want to express is a very high degree of certainty that the proposition "the man - crazy" is valid. It means that your modal attitude (i.e. that of expressing certainty) relates to the proposition as a whole, as if the proposition were embedded into a higher proposition by which you express your modal attitude, i.e. It is certain that
[He is crazy.]
This underlying embedding may result in two surface structure realizations, i.e.
(a) It v> certain that he is crazy. - Jistě je bláznivý.
(b) He must be crazy. - Musí být bláznivý.
If you are less persuaded about the deduced degree of certainty, you may use either a clausal structure to express deduced possibility, e.g. It is possible that he is my age.. or you may insert the modal "may" to express the same, e.g.
He may be my age.
If you are still less persuaded about the degree of certainty, "might" maybe used instead of "may" in this situation, e.g. He might be mv age.
Second, your modal attitude may refer to a part of the proposition only, especially to the predicative verb. This type is called deontic (non-complex, intra-propositional) modality (modalita voluntativní in Czech). Here what you want to express primarily are such modal notions as "necessity", "possibility", "volition", "permission", "obligation", "inevitability", etc.
E.g. You may smoke in here.
Can I talk to you a moment? We must always be on guard.
Sometimes you have to make a decision in life, right or wrong. Here the possible paraphrases are e.g. "I allow you to smoke...", "Do you allow me to talk to you...?", "We are obliged to be on guard", "Sometimes, it is inevitable for you to make a decision...".
Deontic modality is usually subdivided into three areas (or modal "shades"), i.e. necessity possibility, and volition
from which more specified shades, such as "permission", "inevitability", etc. are derived. As you can see from the above examples, "may" and "must" can be used to express both types of language modality. Accordingly, the structures in which these modals are used can be ambiguous (víceznačné), cf. e.g.
They must be married.
(1) It is necessary for them to get married, (deontic)
(2) It is certain that they are married, (epistemic)
It is usually the context (verbal, situational, pragmatic) that plays the decisive role here. The following Fig. 9 illustrates the suggested classification'
Fig. 9
MODALITY
epistemic       (various degrees of deduced certainty)
— deontic
necessity
possibility
volition
(see TÁRNYIKOVÁ 1985,1986)
2.7.4 GENERAL vs. RESTRICTED VALIDITY
Another choice you, as the initiator of the communication, are supposed to make,is that between the general validity of your utterance, and the restricted validity (omezená platnost) of your utterance. If you want to give your utterance an air of general validity, you can make a choice from among the linguistic devices serving the purpose, i.e. for example the sentences with a general human agent (cf. the term Man-Satz borrowed from German) with typical "Man-pronouns" of the type
You never can tell.
Life is a choice, they sav.
We must always be on guard.
There are some things one cannot tell.,
or substantival devices mostly preceded by a generic indefinite article: a man, a fellow. a person, an individual, people... Cf. e.g.
A man like you needn't worry. People forget.
Sometimes passive constructions are given preference.
E.g. (There are some things one cannot tell.) But once told, they cannot be untold.
In Czech the two most common means of reference to the general human agent are the reflexive form of the verb (Říká se, že..., Musí se...) and the third person plural (excluding the speaker), e.g. Říkají mi Tomáš. - This, however, does not mean that other devices are not made use of, e.g.
Člověk nemá lézt do cizího bytu. Nemáme lézt... Jeden nikdy neví.
Nakonec se bavíš jen tím, jak je to právě vždycky stejné.
For details see DUŠKOVÁ. 1973:5 -37.
On the other hand, if we want to restrict the validity of the utterance, we usually do so by introducing into the utterance "an angle" or point of view from which the utterance is valid.
-27-
Cf. e.g. the following utterances:
(a) The country was declared to be in acute decline.
(b) Economically, the country was declared....
In (b) we restrict the validity of our assessment to the economic side.
Typical of this restrictive function are introductory prepositional phrases denoting for whom the utterance is valid, e.g.
For Alison Murray. Christmas Eve was an ordeal.
These utterances can be also speaker-oriented, such as
To me. the most valuable people are the ones who refuse to go in that direction.
Similarly,
This was reality to us.
2.7.5 FACTIVE vs. NON.FACTIVE
A distinction was also proposed between factive and non-factive predications. Thus, for example
John managed to come. - implies the fact that John came, while John wanted to come. - does not imply that John came. Similarly
Peter was surprised that Mary left. = Mary left., while Peter said that Mary left - does not imply that Mary left. Or
Charles realizes that Bill is tall. - implies "Bill is tall" Charles thinks that Bill is tall. - does not imply -»-.
2.7.6 DIRECT vs. INDIRECT QUOTATIONS
When making utterances about other people's opinions we can choose between direct quotation sentences and indirect quotation sentences. The direct quotation sentences consist of
a quotation formula and a quoted, in which the quotation formula either precedes the quoted, e.g. He said. "I'm going downtown." or follows the quoted "Let me alone",, said her husband quickly, or is interposed within the quoted, e.g.
"I'm going downtown", he said, "but you stay right here and don't follow me"
In indirect quotation sentences there is a well known shift of personal pronouns, time and place specifications.
He said, "I'll go over there tomorrow", can be reported as an indirect quotation one day later:
-28-
He said that he would come here today.
We must also take into account the existence of a semi-direct speech (free indirect style) which has some features of both the above mentioned types, cf. e.g.
Oh, God, I am so tired, thought Alison^ and shut her eves. She would sleep.
The aim of the previous description was not to give a complete list of various choices on the side of the initiator of the communication. The purpose was primarily illustrative. In the following section, attention will be paid to the coding of the main body of the CONTENT. (Here the term is used in the most general sense of "what people communicate about").
Linguistic coding of the content is partly universal and partly language specific. It means that each language (besides the generally valid and applied devices) has its own devices enabling its users to shape the semantic content into an adequate linguistic form.
The various differences are the result of typological differences among languages, or different communicative demands of particular speech communities (determined by such factors as the degree of civilization, tradition, culture-bound strategies used, etc.).
2.8 CHOICES IN SEMANTIC CODING We may now ask the following questions:
If the content of communication is to be linguistically structured, in which way do we shape the content semantically?
Is there any abstract level of semantic representation of processes, elements involved in them, etc.? Or, in other words, is there any structuring on the semantic level analogous to the abstract grammatical structures, such as e.g. grammatical sentence patterns of the type Subject-Predicate (S-P), Subject-Predicate-Object (S-P-O), S-P-O-Adv, etc.?
The questions can be answered in the affirmative.
The abstract level of the semantic representation of utterances is referred to as propo-sitional content or simply proposition (propoziční obsah, propozice in Czech). It is an abstract representation of meaning, universal in character (i.e. common to languages).
The proposition expresses the particular way in which we order our experience of reality when we want to turn it into meaning, i.e. meaning as a reflection of happenings (processes, actions, states), and the entities which participate in these happenings (persons, in/animate objects, institutions, abstractions, etc.) and circumstantial features (time, space, location, manner, cause, etc.).These entities and circumstantial features are referred to as participants (in Czech, the terms "participant" or "aktant" are in use). As mentioned before, the happpenings and their participants are supposed to be language universal, while their configurations, and particularly their lexical representation, are language specific (i.e. each language has its own means of expression). For instance, some languages tend to view processes rather analytically (cf. "The sky is dropping water." in one of the Chinese dialects is used to describe the process seen as a sythetic whole in Czech, cf. Prší.). So there is no reason for assuming that each particular process will always be represented by a particular configuration of potential elements.
L
-29-
To sum up, we can say that we tend to encode our experience with processes, or happenings in general, in terms of a configuration of elements each of which has a special significance with respect to the whole.
The dominant part of the proposition is the HAPPENING itself, which according to its character enters into configurations with various participants, usually referred to by their "roles", i.e. ACTOR (aktor, konatel), GOAL (cíl děje, činnosti...), INSTRUMENT (nástroj), COMMITATIVE (spolukonatel), MANNER (způsob), LOCATIVE (určení místa), EXTENT (rozsah trvání děje), etc. According to some linguists, these participants are called semantic cases (sémantické pády), cf. FILLMORE. 1968, other prefer the term semantic roles ÍHALLIDAY. 1979).
Thus a proposition can be illustrated as a dependency construct having HAPPENING (process, action, event) at the top of the branching tree, e.g.
PROCESS
I ~i I 1
Actor Goal Instrument Extent
This abstract scheme may be lexicalized e.g. as
Seven maids with seven mops swept it for half a year. (Act)      (Instr)        (Pr) (Goal) (Ext)
For typical configurations of participants in action clauses see the following examples:
ACTOR-ACnON-INSTRUMENT
John is playing the xylophone.
ACTOR-ACnON-GOAL (i.e. somebody performs an action aiming at some goal) John isplaving the Moonlight sonata.
ACTOR-ACTION-GOAL- BENEFACTIVE John is plaving the Moonlight sonata for you.
ACTOR-ACnON-GOAL-MANNER John did it with enthusiasm-
ACTOR-ACTION-AFFECTED-COMII ATI VE
John burgled the house with an accomplice., etc.
The relationship between the grammatical sentence pattern (e.f. S-P-O) and semantic sentence pattern (e.g. Actor-Action-Goal), is not a one-to-one relationship in which we could presuppose that e.g. the subject is always associated with the same semantic "case" or "role". Cf. e.g.
SUBJECT = ACTOR John feeds the cat in the morning.
-30-
SUBJECT = GOAL
The cat is fed in the morning.
'*tf <\U 03 If:
SUBJECT = ACTION
Feeding is done in the morning. ' :   r :b
SUBJECT = LOCATIVE
London is foggy. (= ft is foggy in London.)
In the process of encoding, speakers of English make many grammatical choices that preserve cognitive meaning. Examples include the choice between active and passive (cf. Jack saw JUL vs. Jill was seen by Jack.), between the indirect object construction and the TO-phrase (Tom gave the boy a ball. Tom gave a ball to the boy.Y similarly, speakers can choose particular sequencing of adverbials (We were waiting for three hours on Monday. We were waiting on Monday for three hours.), whether to use pro-forms, full or ellipted forms, etc. A number of factors may affect the choice, such as the speaker's decision as to the distribution of prominence to the parts of his message, the preceding linguistic context, the purpose of discourse, the level of formality, etc. For details see FIRBAS. 1962. and Volume II of this coursebook (TARNYIKOVA. 1992, Chapter Two).
2.9 ADDRESSEE-- CONTENT
If the addressee's frame of reference coincides with the frame of reference of the speaker, the possibility is given of complete understanding of what the speaker wants to convey to his addressee. Very often, however, there will be appreciable differences between them, and if the addressee is not aware of these differences and does not get the opportunity to share the relevant referential data, incomplete communication will be the result
The importance of the frame of reference and the situational setting of the utterance can readily be proved by attempting to analyze sentences completely detached from them. If you do this, you notice that any utterance which within its actual setting does not cause the addressee any interpretational trouble, will become impossible to interpret because it is open to two or more interpretations. Thus, e.g.
Paul has beaten Bobby. :: '
may refer to two boys who had a fight, but it might also have been heard a few years ago during the chess contest - Paul being the first name of the famous Russian chess-player Keres, Bobby the Christian name of the American Champion, Fischer.
The observation permits us to stress the important point, i.e. that speech loses its efficiency as soon as it is severed from its referential and interpretational background. Such an "amputated" structure is at least ambiguous. Cf. e.g.
The teacher heats his child.
. In the absence of extra-linguistic data this sentence is also open to different interpretations: the child involved may be the teacher's or somebody else's child.
-31-
Certainly, the variants that we will accept as hearers/readers are more numerous than those we will use as speakers.
Having described the components of communicative situations, their relationship, and the various choices on the part of the initiator of the communication, we will proceed to the classification of sentences from the point of view of the communicative intention of the speaker, or in short, from the point of view of communicative modality.
■
-32-
CHAPTER THREE i
COMMUNICATIVE SENTENCE-TYPES
3.0 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter One we mentioned the basic communicative intentions of the speaker ( the basic illocutionary forces or IF's), i.e. to inform his addressee, to issue a command, to ask a question, or to express a wish - and the basic sentence types enabling the language users the performance of these communicative intentions, i.e. statements, imperative sentences, interrogative sentences, and optative (wish-) clauses, with some doubt as to the status of the exclamatory sentences.
All the above mentioned sentence types, also referred to as communicative modality. represent what might be called an obligatory component of each utterance, i.e. whenever you make an utterance about something, you, though selecting among the above mentioned types, must select one, which is then used either in its primary or in one of its secondary functions (e.g. you use a statement to issue a command). In what follows, we would like to focus on each of the communicative sentence-types with attention paid also to the status of exclamatory sentences. First, however, we will address a more general problem, i.e. that of the very nature of the classification of sentences according to communicative modality.
Though the existence of the above mentioned basic sentence types is generally accepted, their classification varies, reflecting quite often the traditional approach of this or that language community, or this or that linguistic trend/school.
So, for example, in Czech as well as in English linguistic tradition, four basic communicative types of sentences are distinguished, i.e. statements, interrogative sentencesr imperative sentences, and optative clauses. Sometimes, however, a more general classification is preferred in Czech, based on the commonly shared features of some of the types, i.e. for example, appelative sentences is a cover term for both the interrogative and imperative sentences, owing to the fact that "appeal" is the commonly shared feature (i.e. a question is an appeal to the addressee to answer, while an imperative sentence is an appeal for activity of a specified kind). Similarly, imperative and optative sentence types have one feature in common, i.e. that of expressing a "desire", though only in an imperative sentence is the addressee asked to do the desired activity.
In some Slavonic languages (e.g. Russian), two basic sentence types are distinguished, i.e. interrogative vs. non-interrogative sentences, with the general underlying sentence frames "I want to know" vs. "I want you to know". - Chci vedSt. vs. Chci, abys vedel.
While both the goal and object of the communicative intention of the non-interrogative sentences are represented by the addressee (cf. "I want you to know", "I order you to do it"), the interrogative sentences are the only communicative type, in which the final goal of knowledge is the speaker/writer, with the addressee functioning as a mediator, i.e.
I want to know from you
-33-
The use of this or that sentence type is quite often situational^ or pragmatically bound.
Imagine a situation in which you are informed that"'Mr Keating has arrived." You may react to this communicative stimulus by using all of the above mentioned sentence types, i.e.
Mr Keating has arrived.    - Let him in. (imperative sentence)
- What's happened? (interrogative s. = i.e. "he usually comes only when there's something wrong");
- I'm coming in a minute. (a statement)
- I wish I had left earlier, (a wish)
(you probably hadn't intended to meet him at all). As you can see, only in some of the responses did the addressee presuppose that the speaker's itention was merely to encode the fact that Mr Keating was coming. It is obviously the case that there is no one-to-one mapping between the sentence - types and the communicative intention encoded. (Likewise, names, for example, can be used for other functions besides naming, cf. vocatives (Mummy!) or requests (Salt.).
If we took into consideration the communicative functions of early child language, we could see that young children use their early linguistic expressions for various communicative intentions. For example, if a child says the word "Mummy", while reacting with an open hand towards an object held by his mother, then the word "Mummy" could be functioning here as a request (either for an object itself, or for an action, i.e. giving). Sometimes it is a request for help that is encoded in the word "Mummy", for example, if the child tries to climb onto his tricycle but fails. He looks at his mother and says "Mummy" expecting that his mother will lift him up and seat him on the tricycle. Later on the same communicative function can be substituted by e.g. "please".
This is just an illustrative example of the fact that since the very beginning, our use of language devices is contextually and situationally bound, and that the final interpretation of the communicative intention of the speaker is really a "language-in-action" procedure.
SEARLE. one of the advocates of the so-called speech act theory (teorie mluvních aktů) gives the following informal account of the process by which a hearer (H) perceives the utterance "Can you pass the salt?" as a request:
"S (the speaker) has asked if I can pass the salt. He must know I can. He is therefore violating a preparatory condition for questions (i.e. that S does not know the answer). Since I can assume he is being co-operative, his remark must have some other force (výpovědní sílu). His question concerns the preparatory condition for the request "Pass me the salt" and since we are at dinner it is likely he wants the salt".
As you can see, much is dependent upon the speaker and hearer's imagination in the context of their shared knowledge. Thus, I am cold, may have the additional meaning "Turn on the heater.", of "Coffee makes me warm." or "Shut the window.", etc. These meanings, as you know, are not part of the semantics oil am cold. This is the well-known difference between a sentence meaning vs. an utterance meaning (i.e. what the speaker might have meant by uttering that: cf. also Chapter One).
-34-
As there exists no one-to-one correspondence between the formal structure of sentences and their communicative functions, the generally accepted basic communicative types of sentences (statements, interrogative sentences, imperative sentences and optative clauses are used to express more than one illocutionary force (IF) in accordance with the fact that besides the primary IF's associated with particular sentence types, there are also secondary (transposed), indirect IF's expressed within the same sentence type.
In other words, e.g. not every declarative sentence form necessarily serves the purpose of making a statement. It is typical of everyday communication that sentences with a declarative structure are used to make a request or to issue a command. Cf. e.g.
It's raining cats and dogs. Paul.
By uttering this sentence the speaker makes a statement concerning the weather in any case, but there is more to it if he also has the intention of warning the hearer not to forget his umbrella, or to give him a command, such as Don't go out, or Keep the dog inside., etc. In this sense, the above example can be classified as an expression of an implicit indirect speech act (implicit, because there is no explicit signal in the surface structure realization of his intention "to issue a command" or "to make a request").
Thus "transportation" or a shift from one to another communicative intention is based on the presupposition that there exists e.g. form A which is used in its secondary function in those communicative situations, in which the primary device for that purpose are e.g. forms B or C. These secondary functions are always somehow "marked" (příznakové), when compared with their "unmarked" usage in the primary communicative functions. The markedness may belong to the semantico-expressive level or it may concern the stylistic level. In other words, there is always some special motivation for the use of secondary functions of basic communicative sentence-types (the diplomacy of inter-human relations, etc.). The "judgements" on the part of the hearer (decoder) are in the case of the secondary communicative functions supported by the fact that the repertoire of these secondary functions is relatively stable (fixed).
In the following section, each communicative sentence type will be treated in detail and special attention will be paid to the status and functions of a disputable category of exclamative sentences.
3.1 STATEMENTS (DECLARATIVE SENTENCES, DECLARATIVES)
For an utterance to count as a "normal statement" (if we use the word "normal" as a technical term), it is necessary for the speaker to believe that the proposition is true. In this sense a statement is usually subject to the rule of conversation, i.e. "Don't say what you have no evidence for."
The exception to the condition are so-called "social lies" or "white lies" in which you purposefully violate the conversational postulate, i.e. "be sincere", e.g.
Thi$ was a fantastic party! - said about a very dull evening.
The primary communicative intention with the statements is to cause a change in addressee's knowledge i.e.
"I want you to X"
where "X" represents the propositional content or simply the content of your message ,e.g.
[I want you to know] I came at five. The declaratives are sometimes subdivided into two types, i.e.
(i) pure declaratives   (in which the primary communicative intention is to inform), and
(ii) performative declaratives (in which the intention is "to inform and to perform"), see
also Chapter One. The following examples will illustrate:
(i) John is ill.
(ii) /pronounce you man and wife. (i.e. besides informing your addressee, you perform an act of marrying a couple).
Unlike a question, a statement does not demand a response. But in conversation, we often make a response to a statement in order to express our interest, emotional feelings or surprise, regret, pleasure, etc. cf. the example introduced by LEECH and SVARTVTK. 1975:114.
A: I've just had a phone call from the travel agent... B: Yes?
A: ...you know those plane tickets to Sydney that you ordered for next Tuesday... B: Mm?
A: Well, he says they are now ready to be collected... B: Good.
A: ...but unfortunately, he says there's been a mistake... B: Oh, dear.
A: Yes, apparently the plane doesn't arrive in Australia until 9.00 a.m. on Wednesday. B: I see.
The secondary functions of statements have been mentioned before, cf. e.g. a statement used to express a wish:
/ have never been fo England- (I wish I were there.) to issue a command
I'm still hungry, (cut me another slice of bread), or You 're the man to fix my radio, (fix my radio), to ask an indirect question
The books are still on the table. (Why haven't you taken them to the library?), etc.
To recognize whether this or that utterance is a direct or indirect speech act representation, is a creative communicative role of the participants, influenced by their experience.
-36-
3.2 IMPERATIVE SENTENCES
The primary intention of the speaker using the imperative sentence is that the hearer makes the propositional content of the sentence come true. The preconditions on commanding being
(i) that the hearer is able to do the act
(ii) that the speaker believes that the hearer is able to do the act.
Accordingly, the primary function of these sentences is to serve the expression of the so-called directive acts by which the speaker imposes his authority over his addressee/s so that he may reasonably expect the latter to do what he wants him to do. This characteristic applies to impositive directives, which should be distinguished from non-impositive directives, by which the speaker leaves it to the addressee whether or not he reacts to the speaker's utterance. Thus the directives can be subcategorized in the following way
DIRECTIVES
impositive non-impositive
command order... advice       wish instruction.
The choice of the speaker between the two subcategories is dependent on various factors, e.g. on his social relation to the the hearer, and the communicative effect he wants to produce. We must, however, admit, that the linguistic correlates of social relationships cannot be so neatly "encapsulated" to reflect the multi-point continuum of socio-linguistic relationships, or in other words, not all of the social degrees of authority find their reflection or "materialization" in language devices. The following examples are illustrative of the non-impositive directives:
Add water only. Shake before use.
Place the dough on a lightly floured smooth surface. (Dejte těsto na mírně pomoučený povrch.) Sleep well.
Be thinking nice thoughts of me.
The non-impositive interpretation is pragmatically bound to the effect that if the hearer somehow profits from the command, he is inclined to interpret it as a piece of advice rather than a true command, cf. e.g.
Drink Coca-Cola.
3.2.1 DO-IT-ALWAYS vs. DO-IT-NOW IMPERATIVES
A distinction could also be made between "do-it-now" commands and "do-it-always" commands, where "now" does not necessarily mean "in the twinkling of an eye" but rather "within a reasonable and appropriate interval". For example
Read every book on the shelf.
Clean the table.
vs. Be nice to old people, (the command is intended to apply to any event in which the addressee meets old people).
2)2.2 EXPLICITLY WORDED INTENTION
The communicative intention of the speaker can be expressed explicitly, i.e. by using the performative verbs of commands {order, command, request...), e.g. I order vou to bring me a cup of tea. I command you to remain here. I request vou to stand aside. -
or it may be implicit, supported by the form of the imperative itself, cf. Bring me a cup of tea. Stand aside.. etc.
The initiator of a command may be the speaker himself (cf. e.g. a father saying to his son "Don't stand here.", or some "higher" authority for which the speaker fulfils the role of a mediator, cf. "Don't stand there." when uttered by a policeman to demonstrators. The initiator of the command can introduce himself indirectly, e.g. as 3rd person, cf.
The Captain requestspassangers to remain seated during turbulence. (The Captain requests
= I as a captain request..)
3.23 DISTRIBUTIONAL vs. NON-DISTRIBUTIONAL COMMANDS
The imperative sentences are sometimes misinterpreted as subjectless structures. In fact, they rather represent a sentence type with an unexpressed subject. In Czech, the pronominal (2nd person) subject is indicated by the verbal ending, cf. e.g.
Zůstaň. Zavolej. Pojďte.
English, in which the 2nd person imperative has no ending, makes use of several devices to indicate the same function (verbal stem -f absence of subject + sentence position). The 2nd person subject, however, may become overt in both the languages, cf. e.g. if you want to specify different activities in the classroom to avoid misunderstanding:
You come to the blackboard, you collect the excercise books..., etc.
as
The pronoun then expresses distinctive reference, and the command is usually made up of a coordination of at least two imperative sentences, e.g.
You come to the blackboard and you bring me your report book.
-38-
Accordingly, it seems functional to distinguish between distributional and non-distributional commands.
While with the non-distributional commands all the possible addressees are included, with distributional commands the potential addressees are restricted by specification. In English the 2nd person becomes also overt in the reflexive, e.g.
Behave yourself. or in tags
Send the letters for me. will you?
(For details see DUŠKOVÁ. 1980:9)
By using the 2nd person pronoun in imperative sentences, the speaker may also want to reinforce his control over the hearer (i.e. he gives his command a more emphatic character), e.g.
Don't you come near me. Don't you dare threaten me.
Or
You wait till you see what she reads. Don't you let them get you down.
In a common conversational situation, the usage of "you" is often accompanied by a gesture reinforcing the addressee selected. The addressee may be introduced into an imperative sentence by vocative, e.g.
Give us a hand. Tom. Boys, stop that noise.
All the children in the front row, open your textbooks.
The indirect addressee (3rd person) can be also referred to by an imperative sentence, e.g.
/ command the officers in this unit to remain here.
To supply a subject if there is no good reason, would be conversationally redundant and it would violate the principle "Don't supply more information than is necessary". In these cases, where a subject is supplied, it is with good reason and the hearer can deduce that some conversational purpose is served, either to specify the addressee's identity where this is required, or to serve a persuasive function of some kind, e.g.
Come on - you give a try.
3.2.4 CONDITIONAL IMPERATIVES
There are sentences syntactically resembling an imperative but receiving a conditional interpretation similar to that assigned to conditional (IF) clauses, e.g.
Make a mistake and there '11 be trouble.
-39-
(= If you make a mistake...) Udělej chybu a budou potíže. Similarly,
Don't report for duty and you '11 get the sack. Receive an invitation and you'll have to attend
These "conditional imperatives" do not refer to reality but rather to eventuality. The speech act performed by uttering the second conjunct (i.e.in our examples "there'll be trouble", or "you'll get the sack"...) is dependent for its validity on the fulfillment of the condition (i.e. "make a mistake", "don't report for duty"). Unlike in imperatives proper, the reference may be to past time:
Give him a smile and he wgs_ you friend for life.
As BOLINGER (1967:33) pointed out: "If a command is an order that is to be carried
out, it is necessarily understood as referring to the future - futurity is part of the definition of a jitu command .
32.5 WHIMPERATIVES
The communicative intention i.e. to issue a "softened command" finds its reflection in the so-called whimperatives of the type
Will/would you pass me the salt? The term is used to describe the fact that these softened imperatives are formed by means of WH-words, which is a cover term for ail the operators used for making WH-questions. The function of whimperatives may be summed up as commanding by questioning, or questions having the force of imperatives. The command potential varies with content -from specific situations to specific situations, cf.
Can you carry out the garbage?
would have the favoured interpretation of a question if the hearer was aged or ill and . obviously could not carry out the garbage. On the other hand, it may be a whimperative if e.g. you want to issue a command in a more polite way, - or, in another communicative situation, it may be decoded as a sarcastic question, if e.g. the speaker is known as a person having pleasure in sarcastic way of communication. Cf. also
Can you find your way out? ( = leave me alone).
Similarly to tag-questions, there exist in English tag-imperatives functioning usually as ".softeners" toning down the austerity of an imperative:
Do that for me.  won't you.
- will you.
Here, the occurrence of a negative in the tag of an imperative is completely optional in contrast with the instances of tag-questions (John will arrive, won't he?)
-40-
3.3 INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
As there are many special studies devoted to the topic, we shall restrict our description to a couple of general informative remarks.
QUIRK et al (1972:386) suggest the following characteristics of the pre-requisite of questioning: questions are primarily used
(i) to express lack of information on a specific point, and
(ii) to request the listener to supply this information verbally.
FIRBAS in his remarkable study dealing with the interrogative sentence from the point of view of functional sentence perspective (FSP), (cf. Firbas, 1975:13) emphasizes the fact that by asking a question the enquirer at the same time informs his addressee of what he is interested in, and "of the particular angle from which he wishes the intimated lack of knowledge to be satisfied."
33.1 CONDUCIVE QUESTIONS
Sometimes the speaker is also exerting his influence as to the content of the hearer's response. This, however, is restricted to the so-called conducive (navodne) questions and most commonly to negative conducive questions. BOLINGER (1957:97) defines conducive questions in the following way: "a conducive or leading question is one that shows that agiven answer is expected or desired". Cf.
You don't trust the ministry? (No, I don't.)
Hasn % it served us well? (Oh,yes, it has.)
So, you are not on the same committee as Dave is on, then?
(Of course, I am not.)
You haven't been telling him jokes again?, etc.
You can see that there is a similarity between conducive questions and rhetorical questions in that both are dependent for their decoding on pragmatics, or the context of our experience.
33.2 WHY ASK QUESTIONS?
HUDSON (1975:16 - 17) points out that the speaker asks questions
(i) because he does not know whether the proposition is true and it is important for him to know, e.g.
Do you stock baby-foods'?:
(ii) because he thinks the hearer had not considered the possibility of the proposition being false and it is important for the hearer to do so, e.g. the hearer might be persuaded that his children went to school, while the speaker is not so sure they went and therefore asks
Did your children really go to school today?:
(iii) because he knows that the proposition is true, and knows that the hearer knows it too, but wants to show the hearer that he knows it (i.e. as a kind of involvement or a starting point for further conversation), e.g.
Oh. are you back already?
-41-
Some of the questions are interrogative by content as well as form, some of them have the form of a declarative sentence. These are referred to as declarative questions, cf.
Mr Martv. you must be fully aware of the implications ofyour decision! ~ Yes.
333 TYPES OF QUESTIONS
Three basic sub-types of interrogative sentences are usually distinguished according to the type of reply expected, i.e.
(a) YES/NO questions or polar interrogatives (affirmation or negation expected in reply), e.g.
Shall we go for a walk!
(b) WH-questions or non-polar interrogatives ( an open range of replies), e.g. Where shall we meet!
What have you been doing all the time!
(c) alternative questions (a choice out of one or more options introduced in the question),e.g.
Would you like me to join you or just wait for you here?
While non-conducive questions could be called information-seeking questions demanding the hearer to agree to the truth of the proposition or to contradict it (YES/NO questions), or to supply the lack of information (WH-questions), conducive questions could , be described as confirmation seeking questions, as the speaker wants to ascertain that the proposition is known, that his opinion is right, etc. Cf. also e.g.
Weren't you at the scene of the crime at 10:10 on the night of the murder!
Questions are sometimes interpreted as discourse openers and in this function may be accepted as "disturbing factors" evoking ironic or humorous responses. Cf. e.g. (wife cheerfully to her husband who is trying to sleep)
W: Are you asleep!
H: No. dead - leave the flowers and get out.
Communicatively, we should also take into account the fact that questions usually occur in sequence units, or adjacency pairs, e.g. "a question + a response to the question", or "a question + response to the question + a new question", etc., influenced in both their syntactic as well as semantic structure by the previous context (see "ellipsis" in Chapter Four).
The addressee may be indirect, yet known, e.g.
Is there any way of stopping that noise!, or explicitly introduced
Well, now, how would WE ALL like to spend this evening!
-42-
3.4 OPTATIVE SENTENCES / WISH-CLAUSES
For a sentence to count as optative, the basic precondition seems to be that the proposition has not been fulfilled yet, e.g. I wish it rained, can be interpreted as a wish only if it is not raining. Similarly I wish it didn't rain so much in England. - is a wish if it rains a lot.
This distinquishes wish-clauses from exclamations for which the fulfillment of the proposition seems to be irrelevant in accordance with different communicative intentions expressed in exclamations. Thus, e.g. Oh. to be in England once againl is a wish clause if the speaker is not in England, while it can be interpreted as an exclamation if the basic communicative intention (see later under "exclamatory sentences") is that of expressing surprise at the content of the proposition. A wish by which we regret something that happened/did not happen in the past is distinguished by the past perfect form of the verb phrases (VP's) in subordinate clauses, e.g.
I feel sick. I wish I hadn't eaten so much. (I ate too much.)
3.5 EXCLAMATORY SENTENCES (EXCLAMATIONS)
3.5.1 FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
As we have mentioned, exclamatory sentences usually do not represent a separate communicative type in traditional grammars. They are supposed to be "parasitic" upon other sentence types with an additive meaning, i.e. that of emotion or surprise. HTJDSON( 1975:8 -10) seems to-give exclamations a higher status by pointing out that there exist in English "WHAT-" and "ISNT IT" structures with an apparently exclamative character.
Exclamativeness in his opinion can be defined semantically. as a special communicative intention. Cf. p. 10: "The speaker is impressed by the degree to which a property defined in the proposition is present". A similar opinion is held by ELLIOTf 1974:242) who assumes that "the function of exclamations is clearly to talk about abnormal or unexpected situations".
3.5.2 STRUCTURAL TYPES
If we wanted to apply a purely formal criterion upon the classification of exclamations we would inevitably come to the conclusion that they have the structure of all the previously mentioned sentence types; cf. e.g. exclamations having the structure of statement
You want me to steal one of Bruno's stamps! You're not serious/
of an imperative sentence
Go and write vour memoirs! (I'm surprised you haven't done it yet.)
of an interrogative sentence
Hasn't she grown! - Ta nám ale vyrostla1.
\
or of an optative clause Oh. to be in England! (I'm surprised that I'm in England.)
On the other hand, as said before, there are also WHAT - and ISN'T IT - structures typical of exclamations only. What associates them with questions is the common introductory signal, i.e. the WH-word. There is, however, no inversion of subject and operator in them, cf. e.g.
How old is vour son? - Kolik je synovi? (question)
How old your son is! - Ty máš ale starého syna. (exclamation)
Besides the pure exclamations of the type Oh. Lordl Goodie, goodiel there are numerous evaluative exclamations, such as How beautiful] You lucky boy\ That's awful] in which the evaluation is explicit, as well as evaluative exclamations with implicit evaluation supplied by the context (What aplace]). Quite often the surprise arises from a deduced degree of logical certainty,
e.g.  You must be dreaming] You can't be that stupid]
These may be referred to as modal exclamations, (in the second example, however, modality co-occurs with evaluation, i.e. "stupid").
We must also admit the existence of various introductory signals typical of exclamations, such as
?•
My. what a big house! Why, it's plastic!
Bows, were they pretty! (the girls)
Isn) it lovely! (the particle NOT being used in the reduced form only. i.e. NT), and the existence of some structural sequences typical of exclamations, e.g.
WHAT(a/n)	NP with an evaluative	complementation
	adjective	
What a	lovely thing	to say!
What	nice hair	to have!
Similarly
WHAT(a/n)	evaluative N	complementation
What a	fuss	to make!
-		
HOW	eval. Adj	complementation
HOW	nice	your daughter is!
-44-
We should also take into account the fact that there are some contextual features favouring exclamative interpretation, such as an explicit description of the communicative intention, cf.
Lou showed surprise. "You really got it all figured out!" "Why, it's plastic/" he exclaimed
or the description of events accompanying surprise, e.g. We're free! Free! He gives a kick in the air.
Typical are also echo exclamations, in which the addressee repeats part of the speaker's utterance with the intention of expressing a surprise, and adding his evaluative attitude, e.g.
A: I've never seen the sea.
B: Never seen the sea! How dreadful!
As for the distribution of exclamations in the text, we can say that they are used sporadically, the whole "exclamatory islands" are rather uncommon, cf. the following example in which the speaker wanted to express a surprise at a well-prepared meal:
Great! Mmm! Feast! World of flavours! A symphony!
To conclude with, we would like to emphasize the fact that there are in English some constructions favouring exclamatory interpretation more than any other. Semantically, the class of exclamatory sentences is also definable as distinguished from other communicative sentence types; cf. the special sentence frame
"I am surprised by the degree of the existence non/existence of X"
Since the expression of surprise, however, does not belong to the primary communicative intentions, we would rather suggest giving the exclamatory sentences a peripheral, yet semantically separate, status. In spoken language, exclamations are also distinguished from other communicative sentence types by means of suprasegmental units (intonation).
CHAPTER FOUR
SENTENCE PATTERNS IN COMMUNICATION (A Processing Strategy)
4.0 INTRODUCTION
When a child is confronted with the world around him and is introduced by his parents into the magic of his mother tongue by means of which he can gradually, step by step, name the objects of external reality - and later on predicate on them, his instructors are quite often faced with the question WHY as a response to their matter-of-fact statements. Cf.
e-g-
The sun is shining.
- Why?
We must do some shopping.
- Why?
This constant demand for reasoning brings us to the basic principle around which our language seems to be built, i.e. the principle of cause and effect.
It reflects man's continuous endeavour to discover or disclose still unknown facts about external reality, man's responses (mental or physical) to the facts of the external reality influencing his decisions, his judgements, attitudes, etc.; or in other words, man's constant confrontation with extra-linguistic reality (or the outer world).
In adult life, the application of the principle of cause and effect is presupposed by the participants of communication as one of the co-operative principles (i.e. the speaker, for instance, explains the necessity of doing some actions, or reasons for existence/appearance of some events/things, without being asked for it.
Further experience of a man with the objects of external reality, which must find its reflection in any natural language, is their co-occurrence (co-existence). It may be looked upon as a mere sequence of parallel items, i.e. A + B + C + D + ...n, or a hierarchically organized structure with subordinate items, e.g.
A
B
C...
or the combination of both with various structural configurations, e.g.
A + B or: A
C B + C
D D, etc.
Language, functioning as a means of communication, must enable men to makje utterances about these facts. Consequently, there exist in the mechanisms of language, processes and corresponding language devices which enable us to reflect a multi-faceted picture of the outer world. Of course, the participants of communication do not make utterances about the outer world in its complexity. They rather select particular items and their relations, and the corresponding language devices for their "materialization".
-46-
We must, however, keep in mind that the possibilities of language reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the world are somehow restricted by the linear organization of language units. This is the well-known "princip linéaire" of De Saússure. The temporal, linear sequence is what we may call the natural framework of speech. (One cannot use two words or wordlike elements at the same time.)
Temporal succession in itself does not , however, constitute a syntactic phenomenon belonging to one language in particular. It is nothing more than the "canvas" on which the syntactic patterns of the different languages have to be embroidered. Or, in other words, the pure fact of the linear sequence does not automatically furnish the listener with the knowledge of how to connect the elements offered to him. Compare, e.g. the multi-faceted picture of the writer's view, which has to be encoded into a linear structure of the following utterance:
The view extended, alone the valley, harmonious, glittering,
distant, dry, nature at its best. He gazed at it. at the pale greens and greys of the far limestone, the hard blue of the skv, the black trees in the lane, the grey-green roofs of the village beneain. (Výhled teď obsáhl už i údolí, harmonické, třpytivé, vzdálené, suché, příroda v plné kráse. Upřeně se díval - na jemnou zeleň a šeď vzdáleného pískovce, na ostrou modř oblohy, černé stromy v aleji, a na šedozelené střechy tam dole ve vesnici.)
Fig. 11 is illustrative of the multi-faceted picture encoded:
On the other hand, as mentioned before, one of the fundamental aspects of language is its creativity. Every human language is a creative system in the sense that it enables its users to produce and comprehend new sentences that they have neither heard nor produced before. The range of possible sentences in a language is truly infinite. Any given sentence, for example, can be extended simply by adding to it a conjunction, such as AND followed by another sentence, etc. There are many other (and more elaborate) ways of extending the length of a sentence ; cf. for example the use of multiple relative clauses of the type
I never suspected that the crime was committed by that man.
who occasionally dated the girl,
who is the sister of the contractor,
who built my parent's house.
Such an extension of sentences is based on the principle of recursiveness, i.e. on the repeated application of the same extending rule. Compare similarly the recursive occurrence of object clauses in the following example
valley
harmonious glittering distant dry
nature at its best
the pale greens and greys of the far limestone the hard blue of the sky the black trees on the lane the grey-green roofs of the village beneath
-47-
Bv the time Friday evening had been reqche.d Miles knew that Lisa knew and he knew that the knew that she knew.
(Než nastal páteční večer, Miles věděl, že Lisa to víy a věděl také, ze i ona ví, že on to ví o ní.)
The example is at the same time illustrative of the fact that recursiveness has certain limits regulated by the principle of comprehensibility.
There are also processes contributing to the ramification of utterances (větvení výpovědi), thus shifting the secondary or accompanying actions or events into the background of the more prominent parts of utterances (see "ramification" in this chapter). Cf.
Trilogies. I was informed by my London sources as soon as the news leaked out that I was writing one, are not good things for the West End.
(Trilogie, dozvěděl jsem se od svých londýnských zdrojů, jakmile se dostalo na veřejnost, že jednu píši, nejsou pro West End dobré.)
In the following section, we would like to pay attention to some of the processes applied in structuring sentences when these become parts of higher syntactic units. Before doing so, however, we must admit that we will try to isolate the processes for methodological purposes only. In real communicative situations, they operate in a complex interplay - with some of them being pre-requisites for the application of others.
It is really difficult to find a reliable starting point here. First of all, we should make it clear that whenever the term "sentence" is used throughout this chapter, we refer to the sentence as an abstract unit, with its grammatical and semantic sentence patterns (GSP, SSP respectively), i.e. we try to abstract here (at least in the first stage of description) from concrete sentence realizations in utterances to be able to describe the various processes influencing the shaping of sentences "built-in" into larger syntactic units.
Consider, e.g. the analogy of an anatomist who has nothing to study but severed arms. No doubt he could learn a great deal about the arm from his study, but he would miss the most important fact: arms are normally connected to bodies.
We should, however keep in mind that whenever we try to illustrate or verify the abstract models by concrete language usage, we are again at the level of concrete utterances, concrete manifestations of particular sentence patterns and processes, which are con-textually (verbally, situationally or pragmatically) bound. (There are some exceptions to these characteristics, e.g. in the case of more or less stereotyped everyday phrases of the type Sorry. Beg your pardon. Thanks. These will be dealt with later under the heading of ellipsis.)
Let us begin with a simple sentence structure and the familiar notions of grammatical and semantic sentence patterns, as represented, for example, by the typical transitive predication pattern S-P-O (Subject-Predicate-Object) and its possible SSP configuration Actor-Action-Affected, with the surface structure realization
Twos reading a detective story.
What syntactic processes can be applied to the sentence patterns in the process of communication?
-48-
\
4.1 A SURVEY OF BASIC PROCESSES
4.1.1 SPLITTING (větná parcelace)
The grammatical sentence pattern and semantic sentence pattern may remain unchanged, though not realized within the same sentence unit; cf. our example J was reading a detective storv. and its split version
/ was reading. A detective stnrv.
The process enabling the splitting of sentences into formally isolated, yet semantically related parts is sometimes called "parcelation" by Czech scholars, but the term "splitting" seems to sound more English. The resulting structures might accordingly be referred to as "split-structures".
The separation of the parts is supported by suprasegmental units in spoken language, i.e. each split part is usually produced with the intonation of a complete sentence and there is an observable pause between the two parts.
Splitting is a process contributing to communicative tension by violating the rules/principles of expectation (i.e. the regular GSP and SSP). The interruption of the communicative line may also contribute to the unexpected distribution of communicative dynamism (CD) within the utterance. No wonder then, that splitting is a very effective stylistic device. It-gives the utterance an air of unprepared, spontaneous reaction on the part of the participants, and is quite frequently made use of in conversational plays, short stories, sections of modern novels immitating natural dialogues, etc. Compare, e.g.
We have nothing. In common.
Charlotte did not take the equatorial view. Of anything that had happened. (Charlotta nezastávala názor lidí z rovníku. Na nic, co se přihodilo.) Or:
The country was growing old. Like herself. (Země stárla. Tak jako ona.)
Splitting can operate also between clauses in composite sentences. Thus, e.g. instead of a composite sentence with two syndetically (i.e. by means of a conjunction or other connectors) joined clauses, we can find two formally isolated but semantically related split sentences, e.g.
There was no one common cause for all these terrible things. Or if there was. Anthony had not yet grasped it. (Ty všechny strašné věci neměly jednu společnou příčinu. Nebo pokud ano, Anthony ji zatím nerozpoznal.)
Similarly
He was verv successful. But also restless. (Byl velmi úspěšný. Ale také neklidný.)
The second sentence of the example, as you have noticed, is elliptical, with the subject (he) and the linking verb (was) omitted, i.e. BvU (he was) also restless.
-49-
Or:
One of the laws of country life is that one cannot buy fruit or vegetables in the country. So Anthony would grow his own.
(Jedním ze zákonů venkovského života je to, že na venkově se nedá koupit ovoce nebo zelenina. Tak si Anthony vypěstoval vlastní.)
The following two processes will have something to do with either diminishing or extending the initial sentence patterns.
4.12 REDUCTION
This is a cover term for partial or total suppression of an underlying sentence element in the surface realization. According to its character, i.e. whether partial or total, reduction can be subdivided into
(a) substitution - i.e. partial reduction of the underlying sentence element, e.g. / was reading a detective story.
= > I was reading it
Here the pronoun IT substitutes the NP "detective story". Similarly in
A witty young man of twenty came to meet me.
He was dressed in...(KE substitutes the whole NP "a witty young man of twenty";
(b) deletion - i.e. omission of sentence elements which can be recovered from the context:
(lam) Glad to see you. (Are you) Leaving?
Deletion is typical of adjacency (e.g. question-answer) pairs, e.g. What were you reading then?
(I was reading) A detective story.
(c) condensation - here two subtypes can be distinguished:
(i) The status of a finite clause is changed (rank-shifted, downgraded) into a non-finite one, while the semantic content is recoverable, e.g.
/ was reading a detective story but I did not find it exciting. = > I didn't find it exciting
to read a detective story.
Similarly,
She had come to a standstill, drew a breath, propped an elbow on a convenient ledge of the stone... — > Having come to a standstill, she drew a breath... This is the case of the so-called sentence condensers (větné kondenzory) including gerund, infinitive, and participles (-ED and -ING).
(ii) The original sentence is reduced (by means of transformations) to a mere nominal element, which may become part of another sentence unit. The process is known as nominalization (nominalizace), cf. e.g.
-50-
Peter has arrived. = > Peter's arrival
John gave a hook to Peter. = > John's gift of the book to Peter. The basic semantic relations are recoverable, too.
4.13 COMPOSITION
Composition is a cover term for a series of processes contributing to the extension of the basic sentence pattern by coordination, subordination (embedding), and extension by the previously mentioned sentence condensers. We would like to emphasize at the very beginning that long sentences are not necessarily syntactically complex, whereas short sentences may be quite sophisticated. Compare, e.g. a school child who uses a great deal of sentence conjoining will produce longer sentences than one who utilizes embedding, though embedding is apparently a more complex syntactic process than conjoining. Thus the following sentence (a) represents a more mature level of speech than does sentence (b):
(a) At the circus I saw an acrobat who jumped into a net.
(b) I was at the circus and I saw an acrobat and the acrobat jumped into a net.
Quite often, reduction (i.e. substitution, deletion, and condensation) is a pre-requisite for the realization of composition, i.e. first, an original sentence is nominalized (Agnew has arrived. = > Agnew's arrival), then it becomes part of a larger unit, in which it functions as a mere sentence element:
Agnew's arrival was so unexpected that we hadn't even met him at the station.
Similarly,
A man is fighting = > A fighting man
A fighting man is a symbol of the endeavour of peace-breakers.
Though, on the other hand, as you will see later (cf. composition in detail), not all compositions are based on reduction as their pre-requisite, cf. e.g. composition represented by coordinate structures of the type John opened. Mary entered. = > John opened and Mary entered.
Reduction and composition will now be dealt with in detail.
4.2 TYPES OF REDUCTION
The law of least effort is constantly at play in language use. Redundant linguistic items are consistently reduced in size, replaced with a proform or simply left out. Reduction is one of the syntactic processes that enable interlocutors, or participants of communication to apply the principle of economy thus making communication relevant communicative situations. Compare, for example, the increased informational density of the text when sending a telegram, when acting under pressure of time, or when just trying to add a new piece of information to the knowledge shared by participants from the previous situational or verbal context, or from the general knowledge of the universe.
-51-
Various reduction rules applied specify how the language allows its speakers to compress semantic content into a superficially simpler syntactic form.
As you know, the degree of reduction is influenced by various communicative factors, e.g. the temporal or local distance of the non-reduced expressions from the reduced ones, i.e. the speaker's strategy must follow the principle of possible adequate reference in the mind of an addressee. When the reference line is interrupted, the addressee wants to have the gap in his information filled; e.g.
The house...(\ong distance).. .It faces our garden.
The response of the addressee may be something like "What did you say faces your garden?", etc.
Quite often, reduction is an accompanying feature of our intention to shift the peripheral, less important or presupposed actions to the background on which the main content of communication is projected.
Constituents of sentence are reduced or left out
(1) when generally known or presupposed;
(2) when mentioned before;
(3) when substituted by other grammatical means.
4.2.1 SUBSTITUTION
Substitution may be characterized as a partial reduction of sentence elements to a necessary information-bearing skeleton. It is a process in which a sentence element is replaced by the so-called PRO-FORM. The most common and most frequent pro-forms are found for noun phrases (NP's) and the typical device for this referential function are PRONOUNS. It is thus not surprising that in the traditional classification of the "parts of speech", the pronoun was the only recognized class of pro-forms.
If the substitution is realized by means of pronouns, we speak about pronominal substitution. The nominal element (a noun or a noun phrase) to which we refer is known as a referent, while the pronoun by which we refer to the nominal element is called a reference word (referential word, referential index). In the following section we will treat various kinds of nominal, verbal, and adverbial preforms and exemplify their usage.
Before treating various referential words in detail, we will remind you of the basic types of reference:
exophoric     - the interpretative clue lies outside the text, in the context of situation, cf.
Look at that, (pointing to the sun); endophoric   - the clue to the interpretation lies within the text. Endophoric relations are
of two kinds, i.e.
(a) anaphoric (looking backwards in the text for the interpretative clue), e.g. Dora < she, and
(b) cataphoric (looking forwards), e.g.
He is a good chap, John. (He > John)
-52-
Fig. 10 summarizes the above mentioned types. Fig. 10
REFERENCE
exophoric
r- anaphoric
-endophoric —
- cataphoric
And now to the language devices used as pro-forms.
42.1.1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS
Let us start with a simple illustrative example:
Dora Greenfield left her husband because she. was afraid of him.
1_:_
Here the pronominal substitution was applied twice (if we leave aside "her" for the moment); the pronoun SHE is a pro-form substituting the previously mentioned NP (Dora Greenfield), and the pronoun HIM refers to the previously mentioned noun (husband). These are at the same time examples of anaphoric reference, while cataphoric reference can be traced in the following examples
As she drove back to the hotel it occurred to Charlotte that Marin could have been on that plane under a different name.
(Při zpáteční cestě do hotelu napadlo Charlotu, že Marin mohla být v tom letadle pod cizím jménem.)
Similarly in the following stylistically marked use:
I 1 He was a handsome man, was Norman.
(Ten Norman byl ale pěkný člověk!)
Sometimes both types of reference are applied within a single speech unit, i.e. the same noun is referred to twice, e.g. cataphorically and anaphorically, as in the following example
They run wild, those children and you've done nothing for them. (Vyrůstají divoce ty naše děti a tys pro ně neudělal nic.)
-53-
As you know from your own experience, anaphoric reference prevails over the cataphoric one - in accordance with the co-operative principles of communicative strategy (it is rather illogical to presuppose the familiarity with a particular item first, cf. the pronoun used, and then introduce that item as a necessary pre-requisite of the previous familiarity. Cataphoric reference (or cataphora - as opposed to anaphora), in which the pro-form is placed before the co-referring full-form, is considered an intentional (záměrný) stylistic device used by a speaker with a particular focusing strategy in mind.
It is also interesting to know that the choice between anaphoric and cataphoric reference is sometimes blocked, cf. e.g.
Next to him, John saw a snake, (him — John) vs.
Next to John, h&saw a snake, (he refers to a person different from John).
Not all occurrences of personal pronouns in utterances, however, can be associated with substitution. We should keep apart at least two functions of these pronouns, i.e. generic and specific. In their generic use, personal pronouns refer to items in general, cf. e.g. in sentences with a general human agent of the type You never can tell.
They say that for a woman I know too much. Here the pronouns do not function as referential words to either preceding or following referents (i.e. N's or NP's) of the text or discourse segment.
It is their specific function that enables personal pronouns to substitute nominal elements of utterances and refer to individual persons, animate and inanimate objects.
The pronoun IT has a specific cataphoric reference (realized within the same sentence unit) when it functions as "anticipatory" IT, i.e. when it occupies initial sentence position thus replacing a true subject which is postponed (owing to its indefinite character, or a markedly extended structure). E.g-
It_ made no sense to have come after so many years. (= To have come after so many years made no sense.)
Or
It_ was nice seeing you again.
Empty IT or "prop IT", on the other hand, has no referential function. It is used especially with climatic predications of the type It's windy.
It's getting dark., etc.
Sometimes the substitution has an accompanying conjoining function. Cf. John...and Mary... = referred to as they. Attention should be, however, paid to the appropriate use of the substitution pronoun THEY in order to avoid misunderstanding. Cf. e.g. John, is married. Mary is married.
When substituting the two subjects by THEY (They are married.), we express implicitly that they are a married couple (i.e. we regard it as a fusion of the two subjects), while in fact they may be married to different persons each.
-54-
So far we have seen how substitution operates on sentence elements (nouns, noun phrases) only. There are, however, frequent occurrences of whole clauses being substituted by a single pronoun, e.g.
Father is quite well again, fortunately. -Iam very glad of JL
Similarly in
\Jse your imagination, for heaven's sake, li can help us. (it = if you use your imagination)
Pronominal substitution can operate even across the boundaries of sentences under the condition that there is no nominal element between the referent and its referential word which could be referred to by the same pronoun.
In the following example there are three separate sentences. The subject of the first one (Bruno) can be pronominalized in the third sentence (cf. the use of HE), because there is no danger that the non-human subject of the second sentence (the room) would associate with HE as its referential word, cf.
Bruno was waking up. The room seemed to be dark.     held his breath... (+ hum) (- hum) ( + hum)
But:
Bruno was waking up. Nigel was so good with pillows and helping out of bed. //g. was so (+ hum) (+ hum) (+ hum)
gentle.
Here two proper names can be potentially referred to by the same pronoun, i.e. HE. "Bruno", however, is excluded owing to proxemity principle according to which we tend to associate the referential word (he) with the closest potential referent (Nigel).
There are also instances where the anaphoric reference is based on logical rather than grammatico-semantic principles. Cf. the pronominal reference toapremodifier of the head noun in the following example
On a Wednesday in the second half of November, a pheasant flying over Anthony Keating's pond died of a heart attack, as birds sometimes do: it thudded down and fell into the water where he discovered it some hours later.
(Kterousi středu koncem listopadu postihla bažanta, který přelétal nad rybníkem Anthony Keatinga, srdeční mrtvice, jak se to ptákům někdy stává: prudce žuchl do vody, kde jej Anthony objevil až za hodinu.)
Here, as you can see from our "working" translation, we felt it necessary for the subject of the last clause (i.e. Anthony) to be expressed in Czech, though otherwise it can be omitted owing to the existence in Czech of special verbal endings which can give us basic information about the character of the subject.
j
-55-
Since both the pro-forms of the English original version (cf. he for Anthony and it for the pheasant) can be referred to by the same 3rd person sg. ON in Czech (owing to the fact that "pheasant" is masculine in Czech), reference by the pronoun ON as well as the omission of the pronoun in the Czech wording would sound rather deviant, cf. „prudce žuchl do vody, kde jej objevil...", or „prudce žuchl do vody, kde on jej objevil...".
So far, we have paid attention to those cases in which substitution was applied only once, i.e. first, a noun/NP/clause was introduced, and then it was referred to. In common speech, however, as well as in common writing, we encounter examples of multiple anaphoric substitution, i.e. a referent is introduced and then its substitutes are used throughout the following part of the text (text chunk). Cf. e.g.
Miss Sanders moused in. She gave the impression of moving close to the ground. She was about thirty years old with indeterminate hair and eyes of a startling clear blue which gave her otherwise anonymous face a resemblance to a holy statue. She was described in the firm's book as "assistant confidential secretary" and her duties were "special" ones.
Fig. 11 illustrates the distribution:
-She
---She
-her
-She
-her
Miss Sanders-
In the following part of a text, "Anthony" and his "heart" are referred to throughout the whole paragraph. (Cf. the context: an accident is described in which Anthony's friend lost her foot. Anthony meditates whether, for instance, after a rail crash he would be able to recognize his foot presented in a policeman's plastic bag; some of his friends were sure they would not.)
Anthony had been surprised by the lack of sense of ownership. He would have known his own feet anywhere, attached or unattached. But his heart was another matter. Ii beat in his. chest, soft and treacherous. Ii was invisible. Nobody had ever seen ii He. had been unaware of it, most of the time, until ii had reminded him of its existence, and now he thought of i± often, he. nursed ii carefully, as though ii were a baby or a bird, a delicate creature that must not be shocked or offended. Now that he. was growing accustomed to i£s_ presence, hg. was learning to feel affection for ii as he felt for his hands, his feet. He would not like to have this new awareness removed. His own heart had complained of neglect, perhaps. And now he paid ii attention.
As apparent from the above examples, the distribution of pronominal attributes throughout the text is an effective device of text cohesion (sepětí textu). By referring to the previous context, these pronouns make sentences semantically dependent upon each other and influence our communicative strategy in the process of decoding, i.e. they function as informative signals enabling us to recognize that the speech segments we are to decode are not used as context-free segments but rather parts of a textually bound complex whole. Quite often, in the course of communication, we are faced with the structures, in which pronouns are used by speakers without apparent co-referring "full-forms" in the previous context. Most of these examples can be accounted for by pragmatics, i.e. our life experience
-56-
with certain situations. Cf. e.g. the situation in which a large dog approaches A and B, and A says to B: "I hope i£s friendly." The pronoun IT is determined by no linguistic full-form.
The success of the communication is dependent, not on the hearer's finding a preceding linguistic expression, but on his identifying the appropriate physical referent (i.e. the dog in our example). The "givenness" of the referent in this case might be considered in HALLIDAY's term (cf. Halliday, 1967:211) as "situationally recoverable" (poznatelný ze situace). This type of anaphoric reference is, however, restricted to situations, in which the referent is quite obvious to both speaker and hearer.
To conclude the section about personal pronoun substitution, we would like to mention a quite opposite process which operates in stylistically marked usage, i.e. instead of the situationally motivated and presupposed use of the 1st person sg. pronoun, we are faced with a NP seemingly referring to the 3rd person, e.g. instead of
"Sit with me for a little bit." we can find
"Sit with the old man for a little bit." where "the old man" equals "me", i.e. the speaker.
4.2.1.2 RELATIVE PRONOUNS
Relative pronouns are always anaphoric. They function as subordinators used to connect the subordinate clause in the function of a postmodifier to the head of the NP by pointing to it (referring to it). In fact, relative pronouns have a double role, i.e. that of substituting the head noun in the following subordinate relative clause, and that of functioning as a sentence member of that relative clause, e.g.
I i
The only man/that knew anything about fishing/was Charles.
(i) THAT is a substitute (referential word) to the preceding head noun MAN;
(ii) THAT functions as the subject of the relative clause, i.e. that knew = man knew.
Similarly
He's one of those people who always quarrel with their neighbours.
Sometimes, the relative pronoun is preceded by a preposition dependent on the semantic character of the verb in the relative clause (and consequently on the way the verb is complemented), e.g.
So the whole thing had to rise from a handful of people round whom an invisible line was drawn.
(Celá ta věc měla vzejít z hrstky lidí, kolem nichž byla nakreslena neviditelná čára.)
-57-
All the above examples were illustrative of syndetic relative clauses (i.e. with relative pronouns present). We should, however, emphasize, that what seems to prevail in Modern English is the type of asyndetic, juxtaposed relative clauses (with no relative pronoun or other subordinator present), e.g.
He is the man I readily believe. Here the head of the relative clause ("the man") is a potential object of that clause, i.e. I readily believe the man. Similarly
The dav the Queen called unforgettable ended in twentv-one-gun salutes.
(Den, který královna označila za nezapomenutelný, skončiljednadvaceti dělovými salvami.)
The juxtaposed relative clause and the head expression which is postmodified by that clause make a compact whole. Tne closeness of the relation is felt especially if the head noun is preceded by the definite article signalling that further determination follows, e.g.
Here is the. answer you were looking for.
In Czech, where the juxtaposed relative clauses are not made use of, the English juxtaposed clauses are structured in translation as syndetic relative clauses (cf. the examples above: Den, který královna označila...; Zde je odpověď, kterou(co) jsi hledal. In colloquial Czech, the particle CO is often preferred in such cases, cf.
Who is the man you are looking at? Kdo je ten člověk, co se na něho díváš?
While the personal pronouns can occur an anaphoric substitutes even in separate clauses, e.g.
I'd like to chat with Susan. She is a bright girl relative pronouns are not commonly used to open a separate sentence, i.e. I'd like to chat with Susan. *Who is a bright girl.
The sequence is, however, quite common when the two sentences are uttered by two different speakers in immediate succession. The second sentence is continuative in character, it refers to the preceding one, the addressee adds a new piece of information, as it were, instead of the speaker. This is typical of the adjacency (question-answer) pairs, e.g.
A: So then we waited for the next bus. B: Which, of course, did not arrive. A: That's right.
What has been said so far about the relative pronouns in their substituting function is true even of other expressions introducing relative clauses, i.e. before all WH-words of adverbial character, e.g.
It was one of those days when nobody could tell whether it was going to rain or not.
-58-
Cf. also the possible parallel structures It was the place where he was born.
at which he was born, (rather formal) he was born (at).
If you compare the above examples with the possible translation equivalents in Czech, you will come to the conclusion that only the first two of the English structures have the corresponding parallels, i.e.
Bylo to místo, kde se narodil.
v němí se narodil, (ve kterém...) *které se narodil v. *narodilse (v).
It means that not only juxtaposed relative clauses but also relative clauses with the preposition at the end, have no structural parallels in Czech.
4.2.13 DEICTIC (DEMONSTRATIVE) PRONOUNS
Deictic pronouns are used both for NP reference and for clause reference (including composite sentence reference). While THIS can be used for both anaphoric and cataphoric references, THAT is above all anaphoric. The following examples are illustrative of
(a) reference to a NP (i) cataphoric
This is not a new hypothesis.
(Cf. also the structural parallellism with Hjs was a very happy childhood., see the section on possessive pronouns).
(ii) anaphoric THIS/THESETHAT
The water from London taps had been through six pairs of kidneys. This had fallen straight from the sky.
(Voda z londýnských vodovodních kohoutků prošla šestero ledvinami. Tato ( = moje voda) padala přímo z oblohy.)
Students are free to select optional courses on American literature. These are very popular.
Paula married John. Well, that's the man I was telling you about.
(b) reference to a clause (or clauses)
He is late.     - This is unusual.
- That's typical of him.
-59-
Similarly,
r~ i
This should interest you. The book is to be published next week.
In the following example THAT summarizes the whole previous description to which it anaphorically refers
It's me that's left looking stupid in front ofyour friends when you forgot the names of our own children. That was only once.
1_:__J
To make the list of noun phrase replacement more complete, we should also add ONE which serves as a replacement for a noun, e.g.
He searched the big room while he ought to have searched the small one.
The instances in which ONE cannot be used as a pro-form are enumerated in every handbook and therefore not dealt with here. SUCH is often used as an anaphoric pro-form of a noun phrase modifier, e.g.
Gerald Middleton was a man of mildly but persistently depressive temperament. Such men are never at their best at breakfast nor is the week before Christmas their happiest time.
Semantically vague nouns, such as THING, STUFF, etc.used as substitutes especially in colloquial English, e.g.
I saw an exhibition of electronics. I'd like to buy the lapanese things.
Countless examples from everyday usage as well as from literary texts seem to reveal that the word THING is much closer to the class of function words than is generally appreciated. There are two main aspects of the use of the word
(a) THING as an empty head. ■
(b) THING as a pro-form.
THING as an empty head is capable of almost complete desemantization, thus resembling quite often a purely grammatical (nominalizing) morpheme, i.e. an empty head of attributive construction, e.g. POOR THING - chudák, ubožák;
THE SILLY THING - hlupák. THING as an empty pro-form: owing to the fact that the word THING can be readily used to apply to living beings, objects of any shape, liquids, abstract concepts, events, etc. it is much more inclusive than any other pro-form. Cf. e.g.
(girls) -(a party) (coffee)
Nice little things.
The whole thingwill fall flat if you don't gö.
The thing is undrinkable. I have poured half of it down the drain.
On the other hand, we must admit that the connection with the class of nouns to which THING belongs as a lexical noun (i.e. „v6c", with features/-!- inanimate/ and / + countable/, is not completely broken as is apparent from the following two pieces of text:
(a) Was it a bad week?
- Awful. Poor thing!
- I am not a thing. That depersonalizes me even more. It's only a figure of speech.
(b)You have seen many interesting things abroad.
- Things?
Well, people, animals, countries...
4.2.1.4 POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS
Possessive pronouns can have both anaphoric and cataphoric reference, as apparent from the following examples
When Jimmy was a kid his parents often went to Bantry...
I_I
I 71
With his five sisters Jimmy was the only boy in our lane who did not want a new baby. Sometimes even double cataphoric reference is made use of, e.g.
From the time of hjs_ very earliest literary experiences, acquired from his father's library, Suk was captivated by William Shakespeare.
The strategy of usage must be careful otherwise the utterance may result in an ambiguous structure, cf. e.g.
Everybody pleases his wife. for which there are at least two different readings, i.e.
(i) Everyone pleases his own wife, (everyone his) ::    ; ;<
(ii) Everyone pleases the wife of a person referred to as "his" (i.e. John's, for instance) cf. John's.....everyone....his t,=:
We should also mention the type of independent possessive pronouns used in qualifying predications of the type ... t.
His was a very happy childhood.
Professor VACHEK (1974:48) suggests the following stages to explain the genesis of this sentence type (the example is mine):
„61-
His childhood was a very happy childhood. A very happy childhood was his childhood, (inverted) A very happy childhood was his one. (use of prop-word) A very happy childhood was his. (the combination "his one" merged into "his" and finally, another inversion, i.e. His was a very happy childhood.
Here, we can say that HIS as an independent pronoun (analogous to MINE, YOURS, etc.) has the double reference role
(i) as a pronoun, it refers to its referent noun (e.g. John), i.e. his. > John's
(ii) as a premodifier it refers to the head of the NP of which it is a part (cf. his... > holiday).
4.2.1.5 VERBAL PRO-FORMS
The pro-form DO is used to replace predication. Cf. e.g.
A man doesn't spend as much time as Tom does round here without having a very good reason. Similarly
He would never have dreamed of voting Tory, although both his parents did, Or
And as he spoke the word "rough " he seemed to smile more than nature had predestined him to do.
DO is quite often accompanied in this function by SO, e.g.
The doctor had told him to take things quietly and so he was doing.
In the case of an intensive predication (i.e. with a linking verb), SO combines with BE in the same referential function, e.g.
I am very warm and affectionate, you know.
- Sq_ are dogs.
We would like to remind you of the frequent use of verbal pro-forms in tag-questions, such as This belongs to you, doesn't it.
4.2.1.6 ADVERBIAL PRO-FORMS
THEN (-at that time), but also THAT when it is a subject of an intensive predication, are frequent pro-forms of temporal adverbials, e.g.
/ met John yesterday evening and 1 told him then we should arrange the meeting.
I'm coming next week. That would be the best time to invite Peter. HERE and THERE, on the other hand, are typical pro-forms of place adverbials. Cf.
A: Where are my shoes?
B: They're there. -1
A: Where?
B: By the fireplace. «-'
-62-
Similarly
Miles was sitting in his armchair as usual. She found him (here half sleeping, half reading.
I I Look in the top drawer. - I'm sorry, it's not Here.
Quantifiers of the type ALL, ANY, BOTH, EACH,...are not treated here, as they can be regarded rather as elliptical owing to the possibility of their being extended into non-elliptical expressions (e.g. "all of the boys", "each of the students", etc.) according to the context.
Substitution co-occurs quite often with another type of reduction, viz. deletion, which will be dealt with in the following section. Compare, e.g.
Peter helped me. with mv homework and will do so again.
(omission of "Peter" in the second clause + substitution of the predicate part, i.e. "help me with my homework" = do so).
4.2.2 DELETION
There are a wide range of elements that may be optionally deleted in languages, the majority of them probably being of contextual type. In the next section, we will pay attention to three sub-types of deletion distinguished as
(1) ellipsis
(2) elision
(3) non-realization.
4.22.1 ELLIPSIS
For a long time, ellipsis has been treated as an isolated topic in syntax or even in stylistics. From the communicative point of view, however, it should be taken as an integral part of syntactical theory reflecting the real "status quo" of everyday communicative situations. People say things of this sort so often and so systematically that we can hardly classify them as abnormal. There are countless situations in everyday language use, where non-elliptical expressions would sound rather redundant (if not ridiculous), and where no linguistic context is necessary; cf. e.g. the humorous effect created by the label
THIS JAR CONTAINS STRAWBERRY JAM instead of the usual STRAWBERRY JAM.
The structure is so current that we do not feel it as elliptical at all. Similarly, when queuing for a train ticket it would be inappropriate to use the situationally redundant non-elliptical question, i.e. "WILL YOU BE SO KIND AS TO LET ME HAVE TWO RETURN TICKETS TO PRAGUE?". What you can hear instead is e.g. TWO RETURNS TO PRAGUE (cf. also in Czech, i.e. DVAKRÁT ZPÁTEČNÍ PRAHA).
-63-
Saying "NO!" e.g. to a child in a moment of urgency is the relevant act of communication in which the parts of proposition are recoverable either from the situation or from our experience, or mostly from both, cf. e.g. the child is running to an unknown dog, or the child may be trying to jump over a deep hole, he is putting some dirty object into his mouth, etc., and we know from our experience that these situations can be dangerous.
Ellipsis is the expected form in the so-called "telegraphese", e.g. when sending \ a telegram, such as
ON WAY HOME. WILL BE WITH YOU BOTH SOONEST. LOVE. The underlying non-elliptical structure would probably sound like
I AM ON MY WAY HOME. I WILL BE WITH YOU BOTH THE SOONEST. I AM SENDING YOU MY LOVE.
If you had to send a telegram notifying someone of your arrival at the airport, which of the messages would you send, (1) or (2)?
(1) I am arriving at ten tomorrow morning at the John F. Kennedy International Airport on American Airlines flight number 72.
(2) Arrive ten A.M. tomorrow JFK, American flight 72.
Of course it is the second message that represents the normal telegram style. In addition to the abbreviation of certain words, telegraphic messages eliminate many of the morphemes and grammatical words found in the regular sentence. (The speech of children for roughly two years after the end of the holophrastic stage is similar to the telegraphic style of adults, and therefore often referred to as the "telegraphic stage").
Similarly NO OUTLET is a suitable elliptical form of an inscription letting us know that "there is no outlet from this street", as also NO CREDIT (= we don't give credit) is. The same holds true in greetings, e.g. GOOD MORNING (I wish you good morning.), etc.
As the randomly selected examples seem to illustrate, the communicative intention of the speaker/writer when using ellipsis is to reduce redundancy, or to apply the principle of economy resulting in a quick exchange of relevant pieces of information in current communicative situations. From the functional sentence perspective point of view, by avoiding the repetition of the "given" items, ellipsis enables the locutors to focus on more relevant and in this respect rather "new" pieces of information.
The use of ellipsis, however, must not diminish the communicative effect of the information. Compare, e.g. the necessity of additive questions on the part of the listener if the information is inadequate, e.g. "Without what?" "Noticed what?" "Wouldn't do what?", etc.
Consequently, the inappropriate use of ellipsis may lead to difficulties in decoding and sometimes results in unwanted humorous situations. Cf. a note in a report book of a primary school girl which read as follows:
ŽÁKYNĚ CHODILA PO CHODBĚ, KDYŽ BYLA MOKRÁ.
(The pupil was walking along the corridor floor when wet.)
(Was it the corridor floor that was wet, or the pupil? Really, the reading is ambiguous.)
-64-
As we have already mentioned, the use of ellipsis is a typical feature of everyday communicative situations where its intelligibility or acceptability is dependent on various factors we will try to describe in detail later. As you can imagine, an important role is played by verbal, situational and pragmatic context.
Consider, for example, the following microdialogues as quoted from SHOPEN (1973:65):
HEY MIKE. HELLO HENRY.
- WHAT? - WHAT HAPPENED?
ANN'S COAT. BOBBY REFUSED. ■  .   ■    t ■
- O.K. - WHAT WILL WE DO NOW?
We can see that both, i.e. "Ann's coat." and "Bobby refused." are elliptical realizations of their respective propositions. In the first example, the participant (i.e. the NP "Ann's coat") is without the governing verb (predicate), while in the second example the right-hand participant of the verb is elliptically omitted (i.e. "Bobby refused something.") In the first example, we could imagine e.g. the following context:
(Don't forget to bring) Ann's coat., or
(Put) Ann's coat (in a box so she can take it home).
Here "Ann's coat" functions as an object. But it can also function as the subject of a non-elliptical structure, e.g.
Ann's coat (has been left in the cloak-room).
Similarly, in the second example, "Bobby refused" can be used e.g. in the context
Bobby refused (to give us a hand)., or
Bobby refused (to take part in the competition).
These two procedures of elliptical omission, i.e. that we have a nominal element with its governing predicate missing, or that we have a predicate verb with its complementation missing, seem to be universal in character, i.e. typical of many languages.
When dealing with ellipsis, it seems methodologically important to distinguish accidental omission of words or phrases (due to e.g. the speaker's emotion) from reduction motivated by some linguistic rules (and explainable in terms of grammar). Compare, for example, the use of ellipsis in coordination of the type I was reading a detective story and Peter a novel.
A) DEFINITION OF ELLIPSIS
Before discussing the classificatory criteria, we should answer the question of what is understood by the notion of "ellipsis", as the opinions of linguists are not unique. For some of them, a criterion for inclusion is the possibility of constructing a non-elliptical parallel. QUIRK et al. (1972:595) e.g. refuse to classify coordinated structures of the type
You and your brother can watch television. as elliptical due to the strangeness of the non-elliptical
You can watch television and your brother can watch television.
In this view the concept of ellipsis includes a presupposition of the possible non-elliptical text against which the elliptical structure is projected. Arguing that the non-elliptical structure in the above example is strange, the authors seem to mix up different levels of linguistic representation.
Their "strange", non-elliptical structure (You can watch television and your brother can watch television) is an example of an underlying structure belonging to language theory, while the ellipted structure is a possible manifestation of the theory in practice, a result of a "language-in-action" process.
Taking into account these facts, HLAVSA (1981:121) suggests the following definition of ellipsis: "...iř is possible to consider ellipsis any position of the surface representation of the sentence pattern which is vacant but which is - according to the theory - expected to be filled "
NOSHK (1971:89 - 108) treats the problem under the more general heading of "truncated utterances" (kusé výpovědi). He investigates the suppressed linguistic functions of the ellipted structures, their distribution in the text, and their function in modern colloquial English. The term "ellipsis" in Nosek's conception is used in a narrower sense, and ellipsis is distinguished above all distributionally: it is an amputation of the basic text inside the utterance, not at its beginning or end. Cf. e.g. the omission of a copula
Silly boy - the window (is) open, too. , or the omission of a preposition Josie, come here (for) a minute, will you?
The omission of the sentence beginning is called PROSIOPESIS., cf. Nosek's examples (I) Never was much of a hand with kids myself.
(personal pronoun omitted) That's nice, isn't it.(That)Puts me in mind my first job..).
(deictic pronoun omitted) Did your ancestors come from Africa? No, (from) Cardiff g.
(preposition omitted) (We are) Happy to have you with us.
(personal pronoun + auxiliary verb omitted)
There are also prosiopeses of more than three words: (Willyou have some) Pudding, Percy?
In informal register, at fast speed, where the situation gives high redundancy, the items that are redundant are reduced, sometimes so far as to disappear altogether. Reduction to zero is especially likely in initial positions thus giving rise to truncated utterances. Cf. also
(Have you) Got it? (A re you) Leaving ?
Nosek also takes into account the amputation of the end of the utterance and uses the term APOSIOPESIS for it. Amputating primarily rhematic elements, aposiopesis is based on the decoder's mastery of a system of "full" sentences with more or less predictable grammatical sentence patterns but leaving its semantic realization open to the decoder's situationally or empirically bound decisions, thus leaving space for imagination. Cf.
She was our organist. She...His fist tightened round a penholder.
\
-66-
Nosek treats ellipsis, prosiopesis, and aposiopesis as negative signs, as subtext to a positive text arising from the reduction of positive signs (text) to negative, zero signs, or in other words, from taking away segments of the positive (i.e. basic) text.
The decoding of the truncated utterances is in his view based on the fact that participants of communication know the system of an English sentence and are able to predict in the process of decoding.
Note. In our opinion, the term "negative" implies something unwanted or disturbing in the above description, which is neither in accordance with the functional utilization of truncated utterances nor with the commumcative intention of the speaker. The same holds true of the attribute "positive" in relation to non-reduced texts. Consequently, Nosek's term "zero" signs instead of "negative" signs seems to be more adequate.
There is another definition of ellipsis suggested by A. L. THOMAS (1979). He defines ellipsis as a communicative option to omit from sentences contextually available elements that are structurally required by the elements that appear in those sentences. Thus the concept of ellipsis basically concerns the absence of linguistic elements from the overt form of sentences. There is, however, a danger (as the author warns us) of denoting as ellipsis anything that could conceivably have appeared in a sentence but did not actually appear in that sentence; sometimes even elements that could not have appeared in any sentence. We should keep in mind JESPERSEN's warning against "ellipsomania", (Jespersen, 1937:167).
As a result, we shall try to use the term only in those situations in which the "elliptical gap" represents a context dependent variable conditioned syntactically by the grammatical sentence patterns (GSP) and semantically by the semantic sentence patterns (SSP).
B) CLASSIFICATION OF ELLIPTED ELEMENTS
Let us begin with a simple example: / WOULDN'T IF I WERE YOU. Someone unaware of the context in which this sentence was uttered may well ask "Wouldn't do what?" to be able to understand the minimal message which this sentence may convey. In other words, such a sentence requires information that is not manifested in it, and cannot be automatically supplied from the listener's knowledge of the language system. He can only judge that a "verb in the bare infinitive form" is a possible candidate for the elliptical gap here. And since he does not know the lexical character of the verb, he cannot decide the way the verb is complemented, i.e. whether the verb is a mere copula, e.g.
I wouldn't be there if I were you.
or an intransitive lexical verb I wouldn't laugh if I were you.,
or a transitive verb requiring one obligatory element (monotransitive complementation) I wouldn't mend his car if I were you.
which may be also represented by a whole clause I wouldn't presuppose that he is so clever if I were you.
A potential candidate for the gap is also a ditransitive verb (with two objects), such as
-67-
I wouldn 't buy it for her if I were you.
We should also take into account the possibility of complex transitive predication of the type
/ wouldn't make him come if I were you.
and the fact that some of the verbs require adverbial specification, e.g. / wouldn't live at Hereford if I were you.
As apparent from the examples above, without knowledge of the context, we were just able to deduce the syntactic substitution class, i.e. we could only come to the conclusion that the "gap" can be filled by a bare infinitive (i.e. the infinitive without TO). We were, however, not able to deduce the missing pieces of semantic information. This must be supplied from the context within which the sentence occurs. A typical context is the one in which the relevant information is in the immediately preceding sentence, e.g.
A: Peter wants me to mend his car. B: 1wouldn't_if I were you.
Thus the gap can be said to be a context-dependent variable. This means that it may have various realizations if you use the elliptical structure in different contexts. The following scheme summarizes the previous discussion of the example "I wouldn't if I were you" and illustrates that
(i) this type of ellipsis is context dependent and
(ii) pragmatic in nature (i.e. if we know the substitution class, e.g. VP > V(modal) + V(lexical) bare inf.
we can readily fill the elliptical gap by the contextually recoverable paradigmatic units:
I WOULDN'T
be there laugh
mend his car presuppose that he is so clever buy it for her make him come live at Hereford
IF I WERE YOU.
etc.
We shall refer to this type of ellipsis as contextual ellipsis. In contextual ellipsis we omit items that can be clearly reconstructed (recoverable) from the context, either verbal, or situational or pragmatic. The above scheme is illustrative of verbal context. Now, we would like to give you an example of a situational, i.e. verbally indeterminate (slovním kontextem neurčený) ellipsis:
-68-
Peter is about to remove a banana from a fruit basket and eat it Paul notices it and reacts
verbally, e.g.
Iwouldn't if I wereyou. Here the ellipted part is motivated by the situational context. Similarly,
I'll see you after. (= after the meeting we are attending;
- lunch we are just having;
- film we are just watching, etc.)
As for the pragmatically motivated ellipses, cf. e.g. the example we have mentioned elsewhere: The women are restless today. Full moon. ( = the cause of their restlessness is the full moon).
Being a communicative unit, elliptical structure includes a whole complex of meanings based on situation. However, as HLAVSA points out (op. cit. p. 126ff.) many examples of ellipsis depending on situation are rather dubious. Moreover, with some standard of frequently repeated situations, many elliptical expressions lose the character of ellipsis. In Czech, e.g. „malé světlé" has lost its function as a mere attribute to "ale".
As for the context in general, we can say that owing to typological differences between English and Czech, the Czech language with its synthetic character has a rich repertoire of formal devices which enables its users to recognize the roles of syntactic constituents even in isolation.
Thus, e.g. Hlavsa gives an example of the title of a series of poems, i.e. ANNĚ (TO ANN), where the dative case form strongly suggests the role of "somebody having some profit" or "beneficient", so that the very form of a noun makes the reader supply a verb meaning "dedicated to".
Similarly,
e.g. saying KÁVU (coffee) to a waiter means "bring me a cup of coffee". Or when asking KÁVU, PETŘE? (Coffee, Peter?) both the speaker and the addressee will most probably share the same background of a non-truncated utterance „Dáš si kávu, Petře?" (Will/would you like some coffee, Peter?).
On the other hand, the Czech nominative form KÁVA presupposes the context „podává se...", „voní tu...", „mele se..", etc.
According to the direction of reference, ellipsis can be divided into anaphoric and cataphoric. Cf. e.g.
And how is mother?   - No better, no worse. (Mother is...)
= anaphoric ellipsis, the missing part can be supplied from the preceding context.
Annie:. Good journey?
Sarah: Oh yes, yes, not too bad. Red drove far too fast as usual but we got here - oh, it's lovely to come down.
Here the context following the question allows us to deduce the non-elliptical question, i.e. Did you have a good journey? (Was it a good journey?)
4.2.2.2 ELISION
Having explained what is understood under the notion of ellipsis, let us consider another type of ellipted structure.
If you hear an utterance, such as GOT THE TICKETS?, its interpretation is independent of the wider context. What is supplied (i.e. HAVE YOU) is automatically supplied through our knowledge of the language system without the aid of context. We would rather call this type of omitting elision to distinguish it from contextually bound ellipsis. We could also think of the distinction of lexical ellipsis and grammatical ellipsis to distinguish the two types. The occurrence and at the same time difference of both is apparent from the following example:
■ GOT THE TICKETS? YES, I HAVE. ■ elision ellipsis (the symbol ■ is used to denote deleted elements)
You may argue that the sequence Got the tickets? alone is capable of combining with more than one subject and more than one tense element (e.g. "has he...", "have they..."). The choice here, however, is relatively restricted because you select from a closed system of personal pronouns. Moreover,the potential choice within the system of pronouns is restricted by the established conventions of language use, i.e. "subject-omitted" statements will generally receive an interpretation involving a first person subject, e.g.
(I) Haven't got the ticket yet.
(I've) Been trying to get the cat out of the tree., etc.,
while subject-omitted questions prevailingly receive an interpretation involving a second person subject, e.g.
(Haveyou) Got the tickets?
and "tenseless" sentences will receive an interpretation involving the present tense rather than anything else, e.g. (Do you) Fancy a beer?
Most elisions are in fact conventional, supported by the frequency of occurrence of a particular item (cf. Thank you.), and economy of speech. This economy-frequency explanation applies above all to the conventional elision of the first and second person subjects and the present tense, i.e. to the typical conponents of any "conversational event".
Sentences in which the missing part is represented by the subject only (Thankyou.) are relatively rare compared to the examples in which the missing part includes the subject and an auxiliary operator
(I am) Glad to see you. (Areyou) Going home?
-70-
In the case of the third person absences, however, the semantic-syntactic requirement of a subject has to be satisfied by the context so that this type of omission is close to the contextual ellipsis mentioned before, e.g.
■ Doesn't look too well, I'm afraid.
Stylistically, elisive forms are informal counterparts to their respective non-elisive forms, and consequently, their frequency of occurrence is relatively higher in colloquial speech.
4.2.23 NON-REALIZATION
There is still another type of optional linguistic absence, an example of which is an "agentless passive", i.e. the passive construction in which the agent is presupposed but not specified, not introduced into the surface structure of an utterance, e.g.
Arthur's been murdered. John's been kidnapped.
There may be two main reasons for the non-realization
(i) the agent is unknown
(ii) the focus is on the activity rather than the actor himself (i.e. we, in accordance with our communicative intention, distribute communicative dynamism (CD) within the utterance so that the highest degree is carried by the verb, i.e. we are interested in having answered the question "What happened to Arthur/or John?" - Arthur's been murdered. John's been kidnapped.
If the agent is introduced into the surface structure of an utterance, the highest degree of CD is shifted from the activity to the agent himself. In this case we rather answer the question of e.g. who murdered Arthur. (See FIRBAS. 1959, 1961.) This type of linguistic absence is called non-realization by THOMAS , 1979:49.
So far we have mentioned the "context-dependent" nature of ellipsis, the "context-free" nature of elision (with some reservations as far as the third person subjects where concerned). In non-realization, there seems to be no need, on grounds of interpretation, to view it as a part of the make-up of the utterance. Non-realization is the omission of optional elements of the utterance structure. Cf.
Milk has been drunk.
Milk has been drunk bv children.
Here "by children" is an optional introduction into a passive structure of an agent. It is context-dependent if the agent is specified (i.e. "the children" in the above example), context-free, if the agent is a general human agent (i.e. someone-or-other).
The distinction between non-realization and ellipsis may be drawn in terms of two quite different options:
WHAT to communicate and HOW to communicate what we communicate.
-71-
Thus, in "John's been kidnapped." and "John's been kidnapped by bandits.'''' there is a choice between different messages. This is a question of "what" one chooses to communicate. When saying "/ might 0." we communicate not simply that "we might" but that "we might do something in particular" which is recoverable from the context, e.g.
Are you going to London? - I might, {be going to London)
The difference between elliptical and non-elliptical realization is therefore only a question of HOW a message is communicated. Similarly, in the case of elision, the distinction between GOT THE TICKETS? and HAVE YOU GOT THE TICKETS? is one of HOW you communicate rather than WHAT you communicate.
There are differences among various functional styles in the application of deletion in general and various types of deletion in particular. Cf. e.g. the so-called "block language" typical of titles, headlines, notices and advertisements, where words of low information value are usually omitted. Block language is quite frequent especially in journalese. Cf. e.g.
TORIES BEATEN. (= The Tories are beaten.)
From the functional sentence perspective (FSP) point of view, we usually omit words or phrases that are of low informative value, i.e. that represent thematic or transitional elements of utterances. What remains after the "amputation" are prevailingly rhematic elements. This is in harmony with the previously mentioned conversational postulates, i.e. "be relevant", "speak to the point", "be short", etc. No wonder that omission is typical of common sayings and proverbs, such as
The more (people there are) the merrier (the company will be).
So far we have treated substitution and deletion as manifestations of partial and total (complete) reduction respectively. In order to make our description more complete, we should also mention those cases in which both the procedures can be applied and where there seems to be a choice of preference on the part of the encoder. Cf. e.g.
//you ask the students a question, they answer u. quickly. If you ask the students a question, they answer quickly.
The question arises when and why partial or complete reduction is preferred. This is an extremely difficult question and as there has been no reliable answer so far, we can only tentatively presuppose that the "pro-form variation" gives greater prominence to the contextually recoverable noun phrase.
If, however, the main sentence stress (or intonation nucleus) falls on something other than the antecedent NP, the version with full deletion becomes preferable, cf.
When BILL took the exam, he passed. When Bill took the EXAM, he passed it.
-72-
The relation between substitution and deletion canbe seen as a manifestation of different degrees on the scale from "new" to "given" or better from "non-recoverable" to "recoverable", which is built up as the text proceeds, cf.
Peter was watching a football match. Peter was watching the match. Peter was watching it. Peter was watching 0.
To conclude the section about the types of deletion, we would like to emphasize that all the mentioned types (with the exception of some conventionalized or "frozen" ellipsis) are communicative options, i.e. it is also possible to leave the redundant items as they are, undeleted and unreduced, thus giving our communication a repetitive, sometimes pedantic air , cf. e.g.
What is an ellipsis? - (An ellipsis is) An omission of contextually recoverable sentence
elements.
4.2.3 CONDENSATION
As mentioned before, two basic sub-types of condensation are distinguished
(i) condensation by means of sentence condensers (i.e. infinitives, gerunds and participles);
(ii) nominalization.
To make the list more complete, we should also add
(iii) absolute constructions and
(iv) quotational compounds.
All the sub-types will be now dealt with in detail.
4.2.3.1 SENTENCE CONDENSERS
The first to introduce the problem of complex condensation into linguistic literature was V. MATHESIUS. His follower and distinguished scholar, prof. J. VACHEK. pointed out the presence in ModE sentences of nominal trend by which these sentences strikingly differ from their Czech translational equivalents. One of the manifestations of this nominal tendency in English is the frequent occurrence of so-called sentence condensers, i.e. infinitives, gerunds and participles. Their presence in English sentence structure contributes to structural compactness (sevřenost) as these condensers enable us to express the, content which otherwise would have to be conveyed with the help of clauses - either main or dependent.
When translated into Czech, these condensers are often "materialized" in the form of clauses - in accordance with the Czech tendency towards a relatively loose composite sentence structure (uvolněná stavba českého souvětí).
This, however, does not mean that there are no condensers in use in Czech. Compare, for example, their usage in the post-modifying position after the head nouns, such as
-73-
čas jít domů umění psát snaha pomáhat or oči planoucí radostí
vzduch přesycený vání, etc. Both of the compared languages seem to favour condensers in the role of postmodifiers of derived nominals of a modal character, e.g. nutnost psát - the necessity to write/ of writing
možnost se dorozumět - the possibility to understand each other I of making oneself
understood, etc.
The explicit wording of the English attributive infinitive into a Czech clause is to a large degree contextually bound. The same holds true of all the occurrences of these condensers in the text. As for the infinitive, it is often difficult to "transmit" its inherent modality, i.e. to decide whether we are dealing with "possibility", "necessity", "ability", etc. Thus, e.g.
time to learn foreign languages
maybe the time in which it is possible/suitable/necessary...to learn foreign languages. Quite often it is the context that plays the decisive role here. In the following example, it is the attribute "urgent" which enables us to decode the inherent modality as "necessity", cf.
The postman had another urgent letter to deliver.
Listonoš měl další spěšnou zprávu, kterou bylo nutno doručit.
Similarly
Oliver had no money to pay his bill with. - No money implies no possibility of paying. Oliver neměl peníze, kterými by mohl zaplatit účet.
The infinitive of English transitive verbs has its object usually modified in a complex way, e.g.
There is nothing to prevent vou from making as great a success as Mr Butler has made. Není nic, co by ti bránilo dosáhnout takového úspěchu jako pan Butler.
In the following section we will pay attention to each of the condensers in detail.
a) THE INFINITIVE
The ModE infinitive can be found to occur in various syntactic functions, e.g. a subject {To know the main facts is sufficient.) an attribute (time to go home) an object (She liked to teach but she hated to learn.)
a nominal part of the predicate (in our example together with the infinitival subject): To know her is to love her.; in exclamations (To read a detective story at the age of seven.');
in evaluative predications of the type The book was difficult to read. John was easy to please.;
in "apo koinou" constructions (see NOSEK. 1966a) of the type I saw him come. The term is used to denote the double role of a single sentence member and
-74-
overlapping of two predications. In our example "him" in "I saw him come." functions as an object of the verb "saw" and at the same time as a subject of the following bare infinitive "come". Cf. e.g.
1.	I saw		him.
2.	He	came.	
= > I saw him come.
The infinitive occurs also in the so-called final clauses (finální věty) of the type "Istudy hard to be a good teacher."
As mentioned before, the explicit wording of the English infinitive into a dependent clause in Czech is to a large degree contextually bound. Thus the advantage of easy encoding is paid for by many disadvantages in decoding. Compare, e.g.
She was far away to consult.
In isolation it may mean either
She was far away to be able to consult somebody. or She was far away for somebody to consult her.
Thus many infinitival constructions may be said to be ambiguous, i.e. there is more than one reading of the respective infinitival construction and to disambiguate the condensed structure, we usually need an appropriate context.
The above example was extracted from the following context:
He wondered what Alison would say if she were here. She was far away to consult. (It is quite clear now that it was "he" who wanted to consult "her".)
Compare also the different results obtained when decoding the following structurally similar sentences
(a) John is eager to please. - Jan je dychtivý někoho potěšit.
(b) John is easy to please. - Jana je snadné potěšit.
We can say that underlying (a) is a structure paraphraseable as "John is eager - John please someone", while for (b) the underlying structure is something like "It is easy -someone please John".
Under most circumstances, in the English declaratives, the noun that comes immediately before the verb is the subject of that predicate verb and more complex sentences that contain embedded clauses generally do follow the principle, e.g.
n i i
/ want you to put the book here.
I      I        I I Mommy told Michael to bake some cookies.
-75-
(For each verb, the subject is the immediately preceding noun or pronoun, i.e. "Mommy did the telling" and "Michael was supposed to bake". Compare, however the situation in the following example
/ asked you where to put the hook.
Similarly in
Mommy promised Michael to hake some cookies.
I_I
Here the subject of the infinitival semi-clause is not its immediately preceding noun (pronoun) but rather the noun at the beginning of the main clause (i.e. "you" is not the subject of the following infinitive "to put" in "I asked you where to put the book." - though it is the nearest nominal element preceding that infinitive. Similarly, "Michael" is not the "agent" of "baking some cookies".
As POLDAUF (1955, 1968) pointed out, it is interesting to note that the infinitive can be employed in the function of a subject if the verbal idea, or rather predication, is evaluative (hodnotící). Compare his example
To shoot at so remote a target was difficult. Střílet na tak vzdálený cíl bylo obtížné.
to which we can add e.g.
To have anyone touch him is unbearable. Nesnáší, když se ho někdo dotkne.
The only exception according to the author seems to be the identifying predication (X = Y)
To hear him talk of tradition and individual talent was to enter into a world where labels had meanings.
The structural organization of the clauses in this example can be illustrated on a simple scheme
S
I- Cl (1) main ("To hear him...world")
CI (2) Attr, rel ("where...")
-76-
The structure of the main clause, however, is more complicated
Cl(l)
NPi
double inf. semi-clausal structure
VP
NP2
To hear him talk of tradition and Aux individual talent was
inf. semi-clause to enter into a world
Similarly,
To say! she had a face/that would have stopped a clock/ would have been to insult her. Říci o ní, že by svým obličejem mohla zastavit hodiny, by znamenalo urazit ji.
can be illustrated by the following scheme of dependency from which it is apparent how complicated the composite structures with condensers can be; Fig. 12
Cl(l)
NPi
Inf semi-clause
Cl(2) object L Cl(3) attr, rel
VP
V
Aux
NP2
To say
would have been    to insult her.
Quite often, however, the construction with "anticipatory FT" is given preference, e.g.
hwas foolish, entirely foolish, to come now when she was dead.
Anyway, Uhad been incredibly foolish to tell such things to a total stranger.
This phenomenon is also called "extraposition of a clausal subject", cf. QUIRK, GREENBAUM (1973). i.e. the true notional subject is shifted to the end of a sentence and its position is filled by the anticipatory FT. The resulting structure contains, as it were, two subjects, i.e. anticipatory and notional.
-77-
With the "easy-type" adjectives (cf. easy, hard, tough, difficult, simple, etc.), the evaluative infinitival structures of the type "That man is easy to please." - are presupposed to be the result of at least two underlying transformations
(1) the infinitival subject - owing perhaps to its indefinitness - is shifted from the initial to the medial position and its place (at the beginning of a sentence) is occupied by anticipatory IT, i.e.
To please that man is easy. = > It is easy to please that man.
(2) the object of the infinitive (i.e. "that man" in our example) is fronted to replace the anticipatory FT, i.e.
h is easy to please that man. = > That man is easy to please.
The logical subject of the infinitive is introduced into these structures by means of a prepositional phrase (PP), e.g.
The task was difficult for us to solve. (= we were to solve it).
The infinitive can restrict the validity of the previous statement by introducing the angle from which the utterance is valid, cf.
Our National Anthem is difficult.
Our National Anthem is difficult to whistle, (i.e. it is difficult only as far as whistling is concerned).
The infinitive is also typical of causative constructions of the type John forced his brother to sell the car.
in which the condensing character is again apparent. Cf. the amalgamation of two underlying sentences, i.e.
John forced his brother.
His brother sold the car. — > John forced his brother to sell the car. Though there is a preference in Czech for a subordinate clause in such cases, the infinitive is also possible, e.g.
Jan donutil bratra, aby prodal vůz.
Jan donutil bratra prodat vůz.
Unlike in Czech, there is no possibility in English of using a subordinate clause in such cases, cf.
* John forced his brother that he would sell the car.
As for the Czech translational equivalents of the English infinitive, HLADKÝ (1961:105 - 116), having analyzed the English condensers, came to the conclusion that most of the English infinitives find their translation equivalents in Czech dependent clauses of
-78-
purpose (/ study hard to be a good teacher,) and content clauses (/ decided to make a note of it.).
b) ING-CONDENSERS (participles and gerunds) (i) PARTICIPLES ,
As sentence condensers, participles are used especially in those cases in which we want to shift the secondary or peripheral actions/events into the background against which the main activities are, as it were, projected. In this sense, most of the participial condensers function as semi-clausal structures (or non-finite clauses) of accompanying events, e.g.
He stood for a while, staring into the water, watching the weed flow and turn like hair, watching the brown stones and surface shimmer.
Zastavil se na chvíli a upřeně hleděl do vody. Pozoroval přitom, jak plevel plave a obrací se jako vlasy, pozoroval, jak se hnědé kameny a povrch tetelivě třpytí.
The only finite clause in the above English example ("He stood for a while") is followed by a sequence of three ING-condensers (semi-clauses), i.e. "staring", "watching", and "watching". The semi-clausal structures introduced by "watching" moreover have an additional complex "accusative-with-infinitive" structure, i.e. "watching the weed flow and turn" and "watching the brown stones and surface shimmer", which is an amalgam (or fusion) of two predications, i.e.
He was watching the weed.
The weed flow. = > He was watching the weed flow.
condensed into = > watching the weed flow
In Czech translational equivalents, we felt it necessary to extend the compact English structure into a relatively loose structure in which the English condensers were "extended" into main clauses - which is in harmony with the findings obtained by HLADKÝ (op. cit.).
Here follows a simple example of a finite clause preceding two semi-clausal participial structures
Pamela stood, pulling off her gloves, looking at the paintings. Cf. the following scheme: Fig, 13
S
Cl(l)
I-— semi-cl.(l) + semi-cl(2)
or an example of a semi-clause preceding the main clause:
Shouting with joy, we rushed into the sea. Křičeli jsme radostí a vrhali se do moře.
-79-
Having said that the ING-participles frequently function as introducers of accompanying events (circumstantials), we did not mean to deny
(1) the possibility of translating the English participles by means of main clauses in Czech (cf. the examples above);
(2) the fact that there are other possibilities of expressing circumstantials in English, e.g. by means of adverbial clauses, e.g.
As he washed his baby-blue Cadilac. Peter Clemenza pondered and rehearsed his lines,
the expression of his face.
(Když leštil...Zatímco leštiL.Při leštění...).
So far, we have introduced a couple of examples of ING-participles. Before discussing the gerund and its condensing functions, we would like to mention another sub-type of participles, i.e. ED-participles and trace their role of sentence condensers:
From the time of his very earliest literary experiences, acquired from his fathers library. Suk
was captivated by William Shakespeare.
Suka už v době prvých literárních zážitků čerpaných z otcovy knihovny zaujal William Shakespeare. Similarly,
The castle, built in 1360. is now a deserted ruin.
Or
In its day the window had overlooked the garden which, brokenwalled, still projected over the river view.
Compare also the compactness of the following extract made possible by the repeated occurrence of ING- and ED-participles:
... and there were shiny things everywhere: sheets of mirror along the walls, a square of mirror backing the mirror-plated knob on the door that led to the bedroom; cigarette boxes made of tiny bits of mirror and match boxes slipped into little mirror jackets placed all about; and, on consoles and desk and table, photographs of himself at two and a half and five and seven and nine framed in broad mirror bands.
(ii) GERUNDS k
Having no categorial parallel in the Czech grammatical system, the gerund is sometimes compared to our verbal noun owing to its nominal function in the sentence.
The comparison is, however, not exact, since the gerund has still preserved a number of typically verbal features (cf. the possibility of governing the noun object, such as "We caught him climbing the fence."', the possibility of being developed by an adverb, as in "Her running away from home was the last straw".
On the other hand, the nominal character of the gerund is apparent from its often being introduced by a preposition cf. e.g. "Iam proud of having a clever son." and premodified by an attribute: "Your falling into the river was the climax of the whole trip."
-80-
As it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the ModE gerund from ING-participles, some linguists prefer to refer to both the devices as ING-condensers, or ING-verbids. Compare also the following examples of gerunds:
His being a doctor helped them to make friends with the neighbours quickly. To, že byl lékařem, jim umožnilo rychle se spřátelit se sousedy. Similarly
Ifyou feel like giving me a ring any time - I'm usually tied to the house. I don't get out much. Kdyby se Ti chtělo někdy mi zavolat, jsem obvykle nucena být doma. Moc nevycházím.
Or
You don 't mind my calling vou Lisa? Nevadí, když Vám říkám Liso?
Similar to the infinitival subjects with the anticipatory IT (cf. It's a pleasure to see you here.) are gerundial subjects with anticipatory IT, such as in
It's a bit like owning an oversized unmanageable dog, being married to Norman. Být provdána za Normana je trochu jako vlastnit nadměrného nemotorného psa.
To conclude this section we would like to emphasize that the types of condensers have been separated here only for methodological purposes. In current language use, they often co-occur to multiply the compact character of English composite sentence structures. Cf. e.g.
But you 're wrong about mv not having a child being the cause.
Ale mýlíš se, když si myslíš, že to, že nemám dítě, je příčinou. Or
Mothers tired by being mothers forgot their children... Matky unavené tím, že jsou matkami...
Compare also the multiple infinitival structure in the following example: ... and although she was exhausted and longing for them to go, she needed them too much to want to stav to be able to take any steps to precipitate their going.
4232 NOMINALIZATION
Nominalization is a kind of transformation that reduces the underlying sentence structure, e.g. "Peter drew Susan." into a condensed sentence element structure, e.g. "Peter's drawing of Susan", which can be viewed as a "miniaturization" of an underlying structure into a mere sentence element with a nominal function (i.e. an element which can occupy any sentence position primarily occupied by nominal sentence elements. Cf. e.g.
Peter's drawing of Susan was successful. (= subject)
I don't like Peter's drawing of Susan. (= object)
This is Peter's drawing of Susan. ( = complement)
The result of the process of nominalization is a nominalized structure. cf.
nominalization sentence structure      = > sentence element structure
John arrived. = > John's arrival
-81-
Nominalized structures are also referred to as nominals.
Sentence nominalization can be regarded as one of the sentence procedures enabling language users to combine the underlying sentence structures. In this respect it is similar to another procedure, i.e. embedding (zapouštění). The most obvious difference between them, however, is that the embedded sentence retains basically the surface structure of a sentence, whereas a nominalized sentence exhibits the surface structure of a noun phrase, a. e.g.
People tend to criticize the British way of life.
- when embedded it might appear as in
That people criticized the British way of life is understandable.
- when nominalized:
I find peoples tendency to criticize the British way of life understandable.
The study of nominalization of various kinds has a distinctive history in recent linguistics. The first large-scale attempt at analyzing a fragment of English within the transformational framework is LEES's analysis of nominalizations (Lee, 1960). Attention has been paid so far primarily to the so-called action nominals (cf. the above examples, or John gave a book to Peter. = > John's gift of a book to Peter.
Owing to the fact that action nominals may take subjective and objective genitives, cf. e.g. The shooting of hunters (= hunters were shooting, i.e. subject genitive) vs. The shooting of Hons ( = somebody was shooting lions, i.e. object genitive), the action nominals may be ambiguous, i.e. "the shooting of hunters" may also mean that somebody was shooting the hunters.
To avoid ambiguity, there is a tendency in Czech to make a distinction between preno-minal, subject adjectives,e.g. „matčina ztráta" (mother's loss), i.e. S-V relation „matka ztratila"; and postnominal object structure, e.g. „ztráta matky" (someone's loss of his mother), i.e. V-0 relation.
This applies equally to pronouns, e.g. „tvá ztráta" vs. „ztráta tebe". In English, as you have noticed, there is a choice between possessive case (mother's loss) and OF-construction (the loss of his mother) in these cases.
Note 1: In Czech the reflexive pronoun is used in the action nominals to differentiate what would otherwise be an ambiguous nominal structure. Thus, for example, „učit se" (to learn) a „učit" (to teach) when nominalized in the form of action nouns result in the following structures: „učení cizím jazykům" (foreign language teaching) and „učení se cizím jazykům" (foreign language learning) respectively.
Note 2: From the communicative point of view, many nominals are felt to be too heavy in speech and are, therefore, replaced by a clause. Even in written language, however, the structure with multiple nominals is felt as rather formal. Compare, e.g. the less formal announcement expressed by means of subordinate clauses (a) with its more formal version (b):
-82-
(a) Passengers who travel on any train without a ticket when they don't intend to pay will be prosecuted.
(b) Passengers travelling on any train without a ticket and with the intention of avoiding payment will be prosecuted.
4.23.3 ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS
When describing the English sentence condensers, we should not leave aside the so-called absolute constructions (the name is borrowed from Latin), typical, above all, of written English. Spoken language quite often prefers dependent clauses in these cases. The label "absolute" is used to denote that the construction can have a grammatical structure of its own, independent of the structure of the sentence(clause) to which it is attached.
Semantically, however, j/he absolute construction is related to the following utterance (if not inserted into it, see later) to imply the relation of time, reason, circumstantials. condition, etc. as apparent from the following examples:
TIME
Donald out of the room David said, "He's like an undergraduate pretending to be a don! " (= when Donald was out)
The coffee drunk, she took the Hoover from the cupboard under the staircase...
Diana, her duties as a provider of food over, sat down in a comer of the settee and started to worry about how to get rid of her guests.
Anthony Keating, the pheasant buried the vegetable patch dug, started at seven o'clock to cook himself a solitary early supper.
Anthony Keating pochoval bažanta, vyhloubil prostor pro zeleninu a začal si v sedm hodin vařit svou osamělou večeři.
REASON
None of the speakers having any further remarks to make the chairman closed the meeting. (= because)
CIRCUMSTANTIALS
Eyebrows raised, she was ready to tease.
They had many talks with the natives, the guide acting as interpreter. CONDITION
Weather permitting, we'll go for a walk. (= if the weather permits...)
-83-
As can be seen from the examples, the subject of the absolute construction need not be identical with the subject of the main clause, in Czech such constructions are inadmissible, cf. e.g.
* Žádný z řečníku nemaje další poznámky, předseda ukončil schůzi.
4.2.3.4 QUOTATIONAL COMPOUNDS (citátové složeniny)
A special type of condensation is represented in English by quotational compounds (citátová kompozita, for details see VACHE1C 1976:320ff.), i.e. by hyphenized groups of words taken out of their original semantic environments to be transferred to different semantic environments, in which they also perform different syntactic functions, cf. e.g.
She gave him a bon-voyage-and-come-back-soon wave. Zamávala mu na šťastnou cestu a brzký návrat. Or 1
She gave Mrs Silsburn a you-know-how-men-are look.
Podívala se na paní S. pohledem, který naznačoval „ to víte, jací jsou muži!"
Similarly, a "pay-dispute inquiry" condenses the information that "someone inquires why people dispute about how someone pays them".
As evident from the above examples, even a whole English sentence can be used as a quotational compound and function as a mere sentence member. So e.g. "you know how men are" is a composite sentence consisting of two clauses. In the example above, however, it functions as an attribute to the noun "look", i.e.
She gave Mrs Silsburn a _^____look.
you-know-how-men-are
At the beginning of the section dealing with sentence condensers, we have mentioned the tendency of English towards a relatively compact composite sentence structure, and the tendency of Mod Czech towards a relatively loose composite sentence structure. A tendency, however, means that there exist counter examples. Compare, e.g. a relatively loose sentence structure in an English published translation with a relatively condensed original version in Czech:
Bylo cítit jakousi stuchlinu bytu dlouho neužívaného a skoro odumřelého.
Inside there was the musty smell of rooms which have long been unoccupied and from which
almost all life has departed.
Compare also the following example in which, however, something more is at play, i.e. the Czech premodifier „blízké" is more explicitly expressed by the whole clause structure in the English translation:
Obě blízké bytosti mladý skladatel silně postrádal.
The young composer seriously missed these two beings, both of whom were very near and dear to him.
-84-
Similarly
Jako kluk jsem lehával u tety na venkově v noci v trávě.
When I was little I used to lie on the grass at night when I was staving at mv aunt's in the country.
43 COMPOSITION 43.1 INTRODUCTION
Parallel to the development of carefully ordered thought and fine distinctions was the development of the carefully ordered composite sentence. It is apparent from historical documents that early writing was quite close to spoken style, with loose paratactic composite sentences, in which clauses were simply laid alongside each other, where no clause could have been said to become a semantic centre of gravity, or an organizing centre for the remaining clauses. This very loose way of connection is sometimes immitated by modern authors with the intent of leaving some space for the reader's imagination and logical organization of the text.
The presence of identical referents in two sentences is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for them to count as related; if they are not related, they cannot be put together into a coherent discourse, cf. e.g.
(1) Yesterday it was raining. We stayed inside.
(2) Canada is a large country. Many large countries are south of the equator. During the equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator.
While (1) is coherent even though the second sentence does not refer to anything explicitly mentioned in the first, (2) is incoherent, even though each sentence refers to something in the sentence before. To explain the incoherence of passages like (2), we may say that the propositions represent different levels of generality (různé roviny zobecnění).
In the following section we would like to focus on how sentences become "building blocks" from which more complex units are made by means of various "combinatorial rules". It is very likely that combinatorial rules are semantically relevant and can be associated with features that specify the relationship between the sentences being combined. Compare e.g. the following sequence of isolated sentences
Dora died. It shocked us. We became numb.
In discourse this is rather awkward and clumsy, and speakers of English would normally combine them to give e.g.
When Dora died it so shocked us that we became numb.
- where "when" and "so that" are presumably (part of) the overt surface manifestation of the relationship between the three clausal structures.
On the other hand, a speaker of English might combine the three clauses to give a condensed one, i.e.
Dora's death shocked us numb.
-85-
At the beginning of this chapter we mentioned the existence in languages of processes for the reflection of the many-faceted picture of extra-linguistic reality. In accordance with the communicative strategy of shifting less important facts to the background of the more important ones, or, on the other hand, of seeing some objects as hierarchically parallel, composite sentence units are shaped into their final form/s by two main processes:
(1) peripheral (subordinate) elements + nucleus (in various configurations and with various semantic relations, i.e. cause and effect, concession, condition, purpose, result...);
(2) intra-nuclear combinations (i.e. combinations of main clauses) expressing
- coordination ("AND")
- antithesis ("BUT"), and
- alternation ("OR").
In cornposite sentence structure, however, the two types are combined to result in mixed configurations of intra-riuclear combinations with one or all nuclei having their periphery, cf. e.g.
Cl(l)main -Cl(2)
but
CI(3) main — Cl(4)
which represents the configuration of clauses in the following example
He didn't make any money,(1) for he had signed no proper contracts, (2) but for the first time it occurred to him (3) that there might be money in the arts as well as in launderettes. (4)
First of all we should emphasize the fact that different encoding strategies are applied in spoken and written language, which is quite natural if we take into account the possibilities of decoding and consequently the strategies applied in encoding. In the following example, the addressee of the message is kept waiting a long time for the verb as an organizing centre of the whole structure.
In written language, he has the opportunity of reading it several times to make himself sure he has grasped the intended meaning, while in spoken language he would have to have a very long memory to store the subject of the main clause in the jungle of the following subordinate clauses:
Officers appointed to permanent commissions who do not possess the qualifications for voluntary insurance explained in the preceding paragraphs and officers appointed to emergency commissions direct from civil life who were not already insured at the date of appointment (and who as explained in para 3, are therefore not required to be insured during service) may be eligible...
The disappearance of long composite sentences from the general repertoire of writers on non-technical subjects makes such long sentences stylistically prominent. Compare the following text sample from Heller's novel "CATCH-22":
-86-
It was a night of surprises for Appleby, who was as large as Yossarian and as strong and who swung at Yossarian as hard as he could with a punch that flooded Chief White Half oat with such joyous excitement that he turned and busted Colonal Moodus in the nose with a punch that filled General Dreedle with such mellow gratification that he had Colonel Catchcart throw the chaplain out of the Officers' club and ordered Chief White Half oat moved into Doc Daneeka's tent, where he could be kept in good enough physical condition to bust Colonel Moodus in the nose again whenever General Dreedle wanted him to.
In the following sections, attention will be paid to
- coordination
- subordination and
- ramification (větvení)
and to various configurations of these procedures (e.g. coordination and subordination, coordination within subordination, coordination and ramification, etc.
Distinction will be made between clausal and semi-clausal realizations, i.e. we will be interested in finding whether all the processes and events described in the composite sentence have the status of clauses, or whether some of them (due to the preference for a more compact structure on the part of the speaker/writer) are reduced to non-finite,semi-clausal sentence condensers.
If we think of composition from the communicative point of view, we should not leave aside one of its manifestations which is either forgotten or neglected, i.e. composition achieved by recapitulation. In recapitulation sentences represent a tighter structure in that they require the repetition of the same verb of the first clause within the second clause. By doing so the speaker achieves a certain poignancy and emphasis. Cf. e.g.
/ went home, I went home to see what was really going on.
We must, however, admit that the frequent occurrence of recapitulation would violate the co-operative conversational principle, i.e. "don't be redundant". Accordingly, recapitulated structures occur only sporadically.
What we have just said about recapitulation is also true of the extension of the sentence structure by listing, i.e. a more general notion is specified by the following sequence of details, e.g.
I was doing the research work all by myself: I prepared the corpus of material for further analysis. I studied all the accessible books and papers dealing with the topic. I made a preliminary hypothesis...
43.2 LINKAGE
There are basically two ways in which clauses as parts of composite sentences are linked together
(1) the linkage is explicit, i.e. clauses are linked by means of conjunctions or other sentence connectors;
(2) the linkage is rather implicit, i.e. no conjunctions are used (though they can be supplied), and clauses are separated by punctuation marks.
The first type is known as syndetic connection (linkage), the second as asyndetic connection. There follow examples of both:
ad (1) Dora Greenfield left her husband because she was afraid of him. ad (2) Giles felt in his pocket, opened his cigarette case, took out a cigarette, lit it, stared at the damp grass.
A special type or rather sub-type of asyndetic connection is represented by juxtaposition (a mere putting of one clause next to the other without any formal device in between), e.g.
This is the book I like best.
Within the explicit devices there is a choice between a less specific way of linking and a more specific way of linking. The typical device of the former type is a conjunction, while the more specific way of linking is realized by means of connectors (spojovací výrazy), as apparent from the following scheme:
Fig. 14
LINKAGE (LINKING) — syndetic-
less specific > conjunctions
(and, but, or, for...)
_ more specific > connectors
(therefore, however, on the contrary, yet)
asyndetic
Although connectors allow a very specific expression of the semantic relations between clauses, they do not occur too often in discourse, expecially if we do not want to be specific, either leaving some space for the addressee's creative role of assessing, or for some other reasons we take into account in our communicative strategy. The polysemic nature of some of the conjunctions (and) makes their interpretation textually dependent, i.e. open io various possibilities - and it is this less specific way of connection that contributes to the frequent occurrence of polyfunctional conjunctions if we want to leave some space for "functional vagueness" in communication.
Structurally, the connectors are represented by
- words (also, however, therefore...)
- prepositional phrases (in fact, on the contrary, for that purpose, in spite of, on the other
hand...);
- clauses (what is more, let alone, that is, be that as it may...).
The purpose of a sentence conjunction and similar elements is to bind a sentence/clause into a surrounding context, i.e. to give us information whether a given sentence is simply an addition to the preceding context, whether it is antithetical, whether it explains, or exemplifies what preceded, whether it is a result of, or reason for what preceded. The choice of a given conjunction frequently answers such questions. A conjunction may, however, introduce not just the sentence of which it is phonologically and grammatically a part, but a whole
-88-
section of discourse (cf. e.g. the whole paragraph introduced by "and"). Sometimes connectors co-occur with conjunctions as a kind of more specific and at the same time emphatic representation of the linkage, e.g.
He's not a good dancer, and- moreover, he's boring.
433 COORDINATION
In accordance with our aim, coordination of simple sentence members is not dealt with here. Attention will be paid to the coordination operating between clauses, and in this sense, coordination is a means of relating hierarchically parallel clauses into a complex whole. There are three basic coordinators, AND, OR, and BUT.
4.3.3.1 AND
The coordinate sentence is a loose sequence of clauses, especially if the coordinator is the conjunction AND in its "pure" additive function. Compare e.g.
He is my age, and he has long hair, and he wears jeans, and he is also fond of music, and..
This type of conjoining is non-committal as to chronology, in that events maybe reported regardless of whether the chronology is sequential, simultaneous, or irrelevant. The number of clauses that can be conjoined in this way is theoretically infinite.
The following extract from Hemingway's Men without Women will illustrate the procedure:
A man and a woman sat at the far end of the restaurant He was middle-aged and she was young and wore black. All during the meal she would blow out her breath into the cold damp air. The man would look at it and shake his head. They ate without talking and the man held her hand under the table. She was good-looking and they seemed very sad.
(With the exception of the first "and" which coordinates sentence members only, the remaining "ands" are used as sentence coordinators.)
Now, what does the pattern of coordination reveal?
We should rather ask what it does no! do. - It does not state relations between the observed parts of composite structures except in the most general way by stating them sequentially. The narrator, we might say, does not see a world of interrelations, dependencies, causes, and effects, such as is reflected in more specific procedures of sentence linkage and subordination. What he sees instead ( or rather wants his addressee to see) is a world of mere phenomena on which he does not apply any shaping effect.
Consequently, the longer a sequence of paratactic sentences is continued, the more dulling it becomes. The sporadic use (see the example from Hemingway above), can, however, have a marked stylistic effect. No wonder then that sentence splitting (see ad I in
-89-
this chapter) is used in coordination to interrupt the stereotyped additive cohesion by functional pauses achieved by splitting the coordinated parts, e.g.
I want us just to go... And see things. And taste things. And smell things. And touch things...touch trees - and grass - and - and earth.
The coordination by AND, however, has besides its additive meaning more specific semantic implications. In this case the coordinated clauses are sequentially fixed. In the following example, the meaning of (la) and (lb) need not be the same:
(la) She took arsenic and fell ill. (lb) She fell ill and took arsenic.
Similarly in
(2a) Harry robbed the bank and drove off in a car. (2b) Harry drove off in a car and robbed the bank. (Here again the interchange of clauses gives change of sense.)
The semantic implication associated with the conjunction AND in example (1) is that of a "consequence" or "result". In (2) the event in the second clause is chronologically sequent to the event in the first; cf. the possible paraphrase with "then":
Harry robbed the bank and then drove off in a car. Similarly in
Meals came and (then) were eaten.
AND can also imply a contrast and could be replaced by BUT in this function, e.g. Peter is tall and ( = but) David is small.
AND can also introduce a clause the realization of which is conditioned by the realization of the clause preceding the conjunction, e.g.
Make a noise and you'll be punished. (= if you make a noise)
In spoken language, AND is a frequent introducer of comment clauses of the type
He has left her - and that's not fair.
With a restricted class of verbs, coordination is symmetrical, though the verbs seem to be antonyms in their meaning, cf. e.g.
He loved and hated her simultaneously. Here the coordination may be a mere "makeshift" device for lack of a special verb to denote this frustrating feeling; (cf. e.g. similar compensation for the missing superordinate term within naming units. Thus the cover term "sibling" is used only in an anthropological context, i.e. male sibling, female sibling, while "brother and sister" is current in everyday usage).
-90-
A special type of formally coordinate but semantically rather contrasting parallel structures is represented by the type
Giles and Pamela left at nine and ten respectively. meaning   "Giles left at nine."
"Pamela left at ten." Formally, we might be tempted to suggest the following branching tree:
NP
VP
N    + N
Giles and Pamela
left
Adv time
^dv time
at nine       and ten.
the word "respectively", however, is a guide to the true semantic structure, i.e.
Cl(l)
Cl(2)
NP
I
N
Adv(t)
I
NP
1
N
VP
Giles       left       at nine      +      Pamela left
Adv(t)
at ten.
In general, it sounds strange to conjoin an imperative clausal structure with a declarative one, particularly if there is no special semantic connection between the two, aside from their being uttered in the same utterance unit. In colloquial speech, however, examples of this configuration exist and their acceptability varies from case to case, cf. e.g.
Albert is coming for dinner, and don't forget to send out the laundry.
Or   I'll bake you a cake, and sit down in that chair.
The second example seems to be less authoritative as to the imperative used, because in fact the imperative expresses a kind of an offer rather than an issued command, (cf. Chapter Three, the imperative sentence).
Note. As you have noticed, AND, like other conjunctions, is restricted to initial position in the conjoined clause. This is, however, not true of all connectors. Some of them, like "moreover", can be "embedded" into the structure of the second clause, cf. John plays the guitar; his sister, moreover, plays the piano.
-91-
433.2 BUT
BUT is a conjunction typical of "antithetic sentences" (adversative sentences), in which the number of clauses is not indefinite but rather restricted to two, i.e. a "thesis" and an "antithesis". There may be at least four ways of contrast in the antithetical sentence, cf.
(1) a denied alternative
It's not hot, but it's warm.
(2) both clauses are contrasting parallel structures My horse is black but yours is white.
(3) the second clause presents a consideration which counterbalances that presented in the first clause
You have a body with eyes and ears and hands and feet, but your body is temporary.
(4) an expected consequence is denied He came but didn't stay.
They started out for Paris but never arrived.
4333 OR
The conjunction OR is a typical conjunction of alternative sentences, which unlike the above mentioned antithetical sentences may have more than two clauses, e.g.
If the roof continues to leak, then either find a way to repair it cheaply, qt sell the house, or turn it into a slum tenement.
Occasionally an alternative sentence is simply a choice of synonymous or closely related lexical items. In this case the clauses do not in fact offer alternatives but rather alternative ways of wording the same or similar ideas. For this property, they are a frequent device of orators, e.g.
We must try to better our lot in life, raise our standard of living or do something to improve ourselves.
Semantically, the above type resembles asyndetic "paraphrase sentences" which employ synonyms or paraphrases to express the same idea as it were twice, e.g.
She was angry; she was utterly furious at the injustice of the man. It's the most beautiful place on the island; it's a veritable paradise. An accompanying feature of these repetitions is reinforcement.
Note. If you compare the three ways of coordination introduced so far, you can see that sometimes the choice between this or that type does not reflect any fundamental difference in the situation being described, thus, e.g. / went downtown and Mary stayed at home. I went downtown but Mary stayed at home. What is different, however, is the intent of the speaker: in the former sentence, the speaker wants only to couple as it were the two events in one conceptual framework, as in some way connected or parallel. In the latter example, the speaker wants to present two events as contrastive, to set one against the other. Conse-
-92-
quently, we can speak about varying conceptualization of the same situation, which is an option of the speaker tied with his communicative intention, with the purpose of discourse.
Alternative sentences of the type
S -
Cl(l) or Cl(2)
are sometimes used to denote a sense of relatedness between the events instead of a presupposed alternation, e.g.
John will close the window or Bill will freeze. (Jan zavře okno, jinak (nám) Bill zmrzne. Nezavře-li Jan okno,...).
So far we have been thinking of simple conjunctions of coordination only. To make the picture more complete, we must, however, add at least three common correlative pairs of conjunctions, i.e."both........and"
"either......or"
"neither ....nor"
She can both make some sandwiches and help you with the dishes. On Sunday afternoons he either sleeps or watches the TV. He is neither patient nor polite.
("Neither" negates the first clause and anticipates the additional negation introduced by "nor", and in this sense, it is equivalent to two negative clauses conjoined by "and", cf. He is not patient and he is not polite. Consequently, the first member of the correlative pair is sometimes omitted in favour of another negative word ("never", "not"), as in
Gerald Middleton was a man of mildly but persistently depressive temperament. Such men are never at their best at breakfast nor is the week before Christmas their happiest time.)
When dealing with coordination, we should also mention a type of sentence with a rather unusual structure, which can be given schematically as "NP and S" (Noun Phrase + sentence), cf.
One more glass of beer and I'm leaving. Sentences of this type can have more than one interpretation, cf. "If you drink one more glass of beer I'm leaving." "After I drink one more glass of beer I'm leaving.", or "In spite of the fact that there is one more glass of beer here, I'm leaving."
We can refer to the first reading as "consequential", the second as "sequential" and the third as "incongruence" reading.
In general, the sequential reading is easiest to get, since it is comparatively simple to
-93-
construct a context in which the event described in the sentence part (S) follows the noun phrase (NP) merely chronologically. Thus also the following example may inspire you first of all to the sequential reading
The best movie of the year and I'm leaving.
(OK, I'll watch what you call the best movie of the year, and then I'm leaving.)
It is also interesting to notice that if the conjunction AND is substituted by OR in these structures, the only possible reading is that of consequence, cf.
Two glasses of beer or I'm leaving. (= If you don't give me two glasses of beer, I'm leaving.)
4.3.3.4 COORDINATION REDUCTION
In English as well as in Czech, it appears to be the case that, for any sentential coordination with identical superficial (povrchový) subjects there is a reduced paraphrase with coordinate predicates, cf.
John bit the boy, and John kicked the girl. = > John bit the boy and kicked the girl.
For any sentential coordination with identical predicates, there is a reduced paraphrase with coordinate predicates, cf.
That John cooked rice and that Henry cooked the beans is obvious. = > That John cooked rice and Henry the beans is obvious.
Both of these relations can be accounted for in terms of a single universal principle of coordination reduction which justifies the reduction of coordinate structures by the deletion of identical constituents. Compare also the deletion of identical objects in the following example
John hit the boy and Bill kicked the boy. = > John hit and Bill kicked the boy.
Similarly
/ borrow, and Peter steals, small sums of money from rich people.
There are, however, exceptions to the application of coordination reduction. Thus, for example, in English subjects of content clauses are not deletable. Cf.
/ know that John bit the boy, and you believe that John kicked the girl.
but * I know that John bit the boy and you believe that kicked the girl.
In Czech, on the other hand, such a deletion is possible. Cf. Vím, že Jan udeřil toho chlapce, a ty věříš, že kopl tu dívku.
-94-
43.4 SUBORDINATION
In accordance with what has been said about coordination, we are not interested here in subordination operating within words or phrases, and consequently, we define subordination here as a non-symmetrical relation holding between the clauses in such a way that one is a constituent or part of the other. Cf. e.g.
He spoke in a way
'- that reminded me of his father.
(main clause) (subordinate attributive clause)
Subordination enables us to organize multiple clause structures. Each subordinate clause may itself be superordinate to one or more other clauses, so that a hierarchy of clauses can be built up sometimes resulting in sentences of great complexity, usually with recursive structures. So, beside a simple example, such as
/ thought/I was the only boy in the whole world then/who had no father. with the following scheme
S
Cl(l)
I-Cl(2)
-Cl(3)
we can find more elaborate structures (based on recursiveness), such as
/ never suspected/that the crime was committed by that man/who occasionally dated the girljwho is the sister of the contractor, /who built my parents' house. with the scheme
Cl(l) main
Cl(2) object
Cl(3) attr, rel
Cl(4) attr, rel
Cl(5) attr, rel
Though we are not primarily interested here in the positional distribution of the various types of subordinate clauses in relation to their superordinate clauses, we would like to introduce a couple of remarks.
Quite often, the subordinate clause precedes its main clause. This is true e.g. of adverbial temporal clauses by means of which the narrator introduces us into the temporal frame of his narration, cf.
S
i
Cl(2) main
Cl(l) adv, temp
e.g.
When I was a child of about eleven,/ a new excitement suddenly flared up in my life.
As soon as I got to Borstal/ they made me a long-distance cross-country runner.
Whenever my mother settled in a new domicile,/ those photographs were the first thing out of the luggage.
Though this is not always necessarily the case, cf.
It was a bright spring day/when the ambulance brought Jane home.
Subordinate object clauses, on the other hand, tend to follow their respective main clauses (which is in accordance with the position of the object, i.e. after the main verb, cf.
He used to think I was too young, (juxtaposed object clause with "that" omitted)
By now I have showed him I'm old enough. -»-
I didn't believe that the girls really did such things.
I know now what that open circle was intended to suggest.
Though in a stylistically marked context the opposite sequence is possible, e.g. That she could love him I can't believe.
Attributive relative clauses always follow their head nouns, i.e.
Restaurants I like are closing, (juxtaposed attributive cl.) Similarly
My father, whose failing eyesight prevents him from reading to himself any more, sometimes invites me to tackle our English daily newspaper with him.
As for other types of dependent clauses and the respective subordinators introducing them, see e.g. NOSEK (1966b).
Like other kinds of grammatical constructions, subordinate clauses can be recognized in part by their function, and in part by their structure.
As to the function, there are at least two ways in which subordinate clauses are classified within a composite sentence, i.e.
(1) according to that sentence element of the superordinate clause for which they <safo%\\\.ute,i.e. subject clause, object clauses, attributive clauses, adverbial clauses...;
-96-
(2) according to the word-class (part of speech) for which they stand. Thus, e.g. "noun clauses" is a cover term for all the clauses that function in those sentence positions primarily expressed by nouns.
As to the structure, subordinate clauses are divisible into clause elements, as clauses must be, but in addition, they usually have some marker indicating their subordinate status, e.g.
- a subordinate conjunction or any other subordinator;
- a WH-clause element (what, where, who, whoever, how...);
- subject-operator inversion (Had I known it < If I had...).
WH-elements, like subordinating conjunctions, generally come at the beginning of the subordinate clauses. What distinguishes a WH-element from a conjunction is, that the WH-element becomes a sentence member of that clause, e.g.
I don't know who was the first to tell me.
As to the structure of the subordinators, we can distinguish
(i) simple subordinators
e.g. after, as, because, if, since, that, while, when...
(ii) compound subordinators
(a) ending in "that", eg. in that, so that, except that
(b) ending in "as ", eg. as far as, as long as, as soon as
(c) other: as if, as though, in case... (hi) correlative subordinators
if..then; as...as; so...as; such...as; no sooner..than etc.
The choice of a particular subordinator depends on the type of semantic linking we want to denote, on the stylistic level we want to achieve (neutral, colloquial, formal...), and on the context.
43.5 THE COMPOUND SENTENCE (souvětí souřadné)
A composite-sentence structure, as you know, is not a mere sequence of clauses but a neatly woven web of coordinate and subordinate clause relations with various more or less specific semantic meanings. If there at least two main clauses in the composite (multiple) sentence structure, we speak about compound sentence. The following examples are illustrative of
(1) a compound sentence with asyndetic coordination of two main clauses, e.g.
(2) a compound sentence with syndetic coordination of two clauses and coordination reduction of the identical subject in the second clause:
S
S
vacations are long.
7:i(2)
We make money and have fun.
I
-97-
(3) a compound sentence consisting of three main clauses with asyndetic relation between Cl(l) and Cl(2), and a syndetic relation between Cl(2) and Cl(3):
S
Cl(l)    ,    Cl(2) and Cl(3)
(context: Maureen was trying to write her weekly letter to Len):
It was heavy going,/you can't say much in a letter,/ and Maureen had never been much of a one for personal correspondence.
(4) a compound sentence with asyndetic coordination in which the second clause is super-ordinate to an attributive relative clause, which is syndetically subordinate, cf.
_S_
Cl(l) and CI (2)
Cl(3) Attr, rel
e.f. In the first dawn light Annabel lay in the small bedroom beside the sleeping baby/ and summed up, for herself the probabilities/ that lay ahead.
(5) a compound sentence with partly asyndetic, partly syndetic coordination, and syndetic subordination (embedding). Cf. the context to the following example: At mne, they listened to Mozart on the radio.
Alison,/ who was not musical/ did not understand music, sat by Anthony/ and he showed her/ how to follow the score! and tried to tell her about/what it was/ that he so liked in it.
43.6 4THE COMPLEX SENTENCE (souvětí podřadné)
If there is only one clause hierarchically superordinate to the rest of the clauses which are subordinate to it, we speak about a complex sentence. Cf. e.g. the simple complex sentence represented by one main clause and two subordinate clauses pre- and post-poned to it:
S
dm
Cl(l) Adv, temp Cl(3) subject
Cf. As she drove back to the hotel/it occurred to Charlotte/ that Marin could have been on that plane under a different name.
-98-
In the following example, the complex sentence consists of a subordinate temporal clause pre-posed to the main clause, after which three subordinate clauses follow each other in a hierarchic succession, i.e.
S
am
I 1 Cl( 1) Adv, temp Cl(3) object
Cl(4) Adv, concession
Cl(5) object
Cf. When I saw him last/ he told me/ that you had not changed your mind yet,/though you knew only too well/ how happy he would be after all those troubles.
The following example is illustrative of a complex sentence with one main clause, and four subordinate clauses with coordination between Cl(2) and Cl(3), relative pronoun deleted:
S
Cl(l)main
Cl(2) Attr, rel       and       Cl(3) Attr, rel
- Cl(4) Attr, rel
Cl(5) Adv, manner
Cf. One wing was occupied by his wife/ who believed herself to be an invalid/ and obeyed strictly the dictate/ that one should live every day! as if it were one's last.
4.3.7 RAMIFICATION
In the process of communication, the main communicative line (hlavní výpovědní linie) may be interrupted by one or more secondary or tertiary communicative lines having the character of afterthoughts, additive evaluative or emotional remarks, informal asides, etc. The typical syntactic device serving the function is parenthesis (parenteze, vsuvka).
Its place in the flow of discourse will be shown by various marks of punctuation before and after, whether commas or dashes, or round brackets (themselves technically known as parentheses). Such English expressions within parentheses as "it goes without saying", "as you know very well", "if you come to think of it", etc. fulfil a useful purpose because they give speaker and hearer a welcome break in a long and complex sentence, or they may tone
-99-
down the austerity of a statement making the conversation more intimate and friendly. Cf. e-g-
(1) It was Kate - you know her - who I met there.
(2) / entered the room and Susannah - that's his wife - was just getting dressed.
(3) London was growing unpleasant, everyone agreed, and Anthony, like many others. had decided to leave the sinking ship.
(Londýn se stával neutěšným, s tím každý souhlasil, a Anthony, jako mnozí jiní, se rozhodl opustit tuto potápějící se loď.)
As apparent from the example, the distribution of parenthesis within the utterance is relatively free ("everyone agreed" in our example is appendixed to the whole preceding clause, while "like many others" is inserted between the subject and the predicate).
The free distribution of parentheses within utterances is due to the fact that they have no syntactic relation to the rest of the utterance. Graphically, as we have mentioned before, the separation is realized by brackets, dashes, and commas; cf. also the following examples (4-10).
(4) Anthony poured Giles another glass of wine (then six shillings a bottle), he even said to Giles, " to you".
(5) More frequently (for in truth, the very thought of the London scene made him feel physically unwell) he felt the urge to call down at the village pub, but this too he resisted.
Častěji (neboť po pravdě řečeno se mu při pouhém pomyšlení na londýnské prostředí udělalo fyzicky nevolno) měl touhu navštívit venkovskou hospodu, ale i tomu odolával.
(6) All right, he had made (and largely lost) a fortune out of it, but that wasn't the point.
(7) Locke - he thought it was Locke - had said that we make our stake to the land by working it...
(8) Giles, meanwhile, like his father before him, diversified.
(9) The house, nothing as she approached it but a black outline, was deserted - doors and windows open, but not a lamp lit.
(10) Mother and child then - objects of universal veneration, and in this case the mother was famous for her beauty - might be reduced, he pondered, to a purple shadow...
As the examples seem to indicate, a parenthesis may be structurally represented either by a single word/word group or a sentence/sentence complex, i.e. a sequence of several parenthetical clauses as in (8), in which the main communicative line is interrupted by a chain of second ary/tertiary communicative lines:
-100-
(11) Marin was at that moment, even as the two FBI men occupied Leonard's Barcelona chairs, even as the fat FBI man toved with one of Leonard's porcelain roses and even as the thin FBI man gazed over Charlotte's head at the '10 by 16' silk screen of Mao Tse-Tung given to Leonard by one of the Alamenda Three, skiing at Squaw Valley.
(see also Chapters from Modem English Syntax II, "Deviation through ramification", p. 44)
The principle of more than one communicative line is aptly used in theatre plays. In the following extract, the explanation of the rules of a home-made game is intermingled with a telephone call: $
Reg: Now then,the object of the game is as follows. With four players, two of us represent
the police, and two of us the criminals... Norman (on the phone): Hallo-Reg: Now, the aim of the criminals... Norman: Ruth, it's me... Reg: ...is to plan a successfuI raid... Norman: Me. Norman. I'm at Mother's. Reg: The aim of the police, obviously, is to stop them. Norman: How the hell can I be at my Mother's? She's been dead for ten years...
It would be interesting to trace the various functions of parentheses in the text. In Heller's novels (cf. "Something happened") the brackets seem to ramify the basic communicative line by introducing various hero's comments, which he would probably be afraid to say aloud, e.g.
(12) / don't really like them, either (but pretend I do).
(13) It's exactly what happened to Holloway, the man in my own department who broke down (and is probably going to break down again soon.).
(14) lam always hesitant about being rude (to anyone but the members of my family), even when it isn't dangerous.
Sometimes the brackets were used to merely reformulate the previous idea.
(15) That was my first job after graduating (or being graduated from) high school.
Another function of the bracketed parenthesis was to reproduce somebody's direct speech, sometimes even with accompanying emotional attitudes.
(16) A witty older girl named Virginia sat under a big Western Union clock in that office and traded dirty jokes with me ("'My name's Virginia - Virgin for short, but not for long, ha. ha.")
These short remarks on ramified utterances close down our last chapter in which we wanted to put into the focus of our attention the fact that the neatly woven texture which we try to analyze during the seminars is a result of an interplay of various processes shaping
-101-
the simple communicative units into larger interrelated structures - and that the decoding of the resulting structures is contextually (verbally, situationally, and pragmatically) bound.
The strategy applied in the distribution of communicative dynamism has been only touched upon at some places, since the integrated theory of functional sentence perspective (FSP) and its practical application has been introduced and explained in a long series of papers by the Brno anglicist J. F1RBAS. who has developed some of the basic ideas of V, MATHESIUS into a theory widely accepted both in our country and abroad.
The constructions by which the relatively fixed structure of the ModE sentence can be modified are treated in "Chapters II", 1992, under the heading of "Constructions for highlighting", p. 24ff.
In the theoretical section of our textbook, attention was paid to both spoken and written communication. In the sections devoted to practical application, however, the focus was on written communication with the apology that it was beyond the scope of the present work to investigate a representative sample of spoken corpus which would include all the processes we wanted to describe here, and in all the configurations we wanted to have included. The difficult task is, therefore, still ahead.
-102-
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHAPTER ONE
Cohen. T. (1973): Elocutions and Perlocutions. Foundations of Language 4, pp. 492 - 503. Crystal. D. (1971): Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Dušková. L. et al. (1988): Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny. Academia Praha. Falk. Julia S.( 1973): Linguistics and Language: A Survey of Basic concepts and implications. 2nd ed. New York.
Firbas. J. (1962): Notes on the Function of the Sentence in the act of communication. In: ^>      Sborník prací filosofické fakulty brněnské university, A 10, pp. 133 - 148. v.- Grice. H.P. (1975): Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P. - Morgan, J. L., Syntax and Semantics 3, Academie Press N. Y., pp. 40 - 58. Hudson. R. A. (1975): The Meaning of Questions. Language 51,1, pp. 1 -31. Lakoff. R. (1972): Language in Context. Language 48, pp. 907 - 927. Leech. G. - Deuchar, M. - R. Hoogenraad (1982): English Grammar for Today: A New
Introduction. The Macmillan Press Ltd., London. Quirk. R. et al. (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. Longman, London.
Searle. J. R. (1969): Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.
Shwayder. D. S. (1972): Meaning and Saying. Foundations of Language 9,1, pp. 66 - 97. Svoboda. A. (1976): Apropos of Internal Pragmatics. In: Brno Studies in English 12. pp. 187-224.
CHAPTER TWO
Dušková. L. (1973): "Man-Sätze in Czech and in English", Philologica Pragensia 16, pp. 5-37.
Fillmore. C. J.(1968): The case for case. In: E. Bach and R. Harms, Universals of Linguistic Theory, N.Y.
Firbas. J. (1981): A Note on Static Semantics and Dynamic Semantics. Linguistica I, Praha, pp. 78-87.
Halliday. M. A. K. (1967): Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3, pp. 37-81; 4, pp. 179 - 216.
Halliday. M. A. K. (1979): Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure, and their determination by different semantic functions. In: Function and context in linguistic analysis, ed. by Allerton, D. J., Carney, E. and Holdcroft, A., Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-79.
Katz. J. J. (1977): Propositional structure and illocutionary force. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press.
Leech. G. N. (1984): Principles of Pragmatics.Longman, London. Poldauf.I. (1968): Evaluative Predication. Philologica Pragensia 1, pp. 1- 12. Poldauf. I. (1972): Factive, Implicative, Evaluative Predicates. Philologica Pragensia 15, pp. 65-92.
Tárnyiková. J. (1985): Modalita v angličtině (část L Modálni slovesa), UP Olomouc. Tárnyiková. J. (1986): Modalita v angličtině II., UP Olomouc.
-103-
CHAPTER THREE
Arbini. R. (1969): Tag-questions and tag-imperatives in English. Journal of Linguistics 5, pp. 205 - 214.
Baker. C. 1. (1970): "Notes on the description of English Questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme". Foundations of Language 6, pp. 197-219.
Běličova. H. (1983): Modálni báze jednoduché věty a souvětí. Linguistica V, Praha.
Bolinger. D. L. (1957) "interrogative structures of American English. The direct question. Alabama: The American Dialect Society 28.
Bolinger. D. L.( 1967): Imperatives in English. In: To Honour Roman Jakobson, The Hague, Mouton.
Bublitz. W. (1981): Conducive yes-no questions in English. Linguistics 9/10, pp. 851 - 870. Crystal. D. (1988): Rediscover Grammar with David Crystal. Longman, London. Crystal. D. (1987): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. CUP: Cambridge. Cushing. S. (1972): The semantics of sentence pronominalization. Foundations of Language2, pp. 186 -208.
Dokulil. M. (1#54): K modálni výstavbě věty. In: Studie a práce lingvistické I, Praha, pp.
255-262>-^
Downes. W. (1977): The imperative and pragmatics. Journal of Linguistics Vol 13,1. pp. 77-97.
Dušková. L. (1980): English Counterparts of Czech Verbal Subjectless Sentences. Studies
in Modern Philology III, Praha, pp. 7-48. Elliot D. E. (1974): Towards a Grammar of Exclamations. Foundations of Language 11,
pp. 242ff.
Firbas. J.( 1975): A study on the functional perspective of the English and Slavonic
interrogative sentence. Brno Studies in English 12, pp. 9-56. Fries. C. C. (1964): On the intonation of "yes-no" questions in English. In: D. Abercrombie
et al.(eds.) I Honour of Daniel Jones, Longman, London, pp. 242 - 254. Halliday. M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1976): Cohesion in English. London. Leech. G. - Svartvik. J. (1975): A Communicative Grammar of English, Longman, London. Pope. E. N. (1975): Questions and Answers in English. Bloomington: Indiana Linguistic
Club.
Power. R. (1979): The organization of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics Vol.17, 1/2, pp. 107-151.
Quirk. R. et at. (1972): A Grammar of Contemporary English, Longman, London. Quirk. R. et a.(1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.
Ross J. R. (1970): On Declarative Sentences. In: Jacobs and Rosenbaum (eds.) Reading in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass.
CHAPTER FOUR
Banfield. Ann (1973): Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech.
Foundations of Language Vol. 10,1, pp. 1-39. Carden. G. (1982): Backwards anaphora in discourse content. Journal in Linguistics, Vol
18,2. pp. 361-387.
Comrie. B. (1976): The syntax of action nominals: a cross-language study. Lingua Vol 40,2,3, pp. 177-201.
-104-
Dušková. L. (1974): The Compound and Complex Sentence in English Fiction and Scientific Writing. In: Contributions to Applied Linguistics (1,11), pp. 143 - 156.
Firbas. J. (1961): On the Communicative Value of the Modern English Finite Verb. Brno Studies in English 3, pp. 79ff.
Halliday. M. A. K. (1967): Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, pp. 199 - 244.
Handkamer. J. - I. Sad (1976): Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, pp. 391-428.
Hladký. J. (1961): Remarks on Complex Condensation Phenomena in some English and
Czech Contexts. Brno Studies in English 3, pp. 105 - 116. Hlavsa. Z. (1981): On Syntactic Ellipsis. Linguistica I, Praha, pp. 119-128. Chafe. W. L. (1974): Language and consciousness. Language 50, pp. Ill - 133. Jespersen. O. (1937): A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles I-VTÍ (1909 - 49),
London and Copenhagen. Lakoff. R. (1971): And's and buťs about conjunction. In: C. J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen
(eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York. Lees. R. B. (1960): The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington, Indiana. Levi. Judit. N. (1978): The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic
Press.
Macháček. J. (1965): Complementation of the English Verb by the Accusative-with-Infi-
nitive and the Content Clause. AUPO Philosophica 11. Mathesius. V. (1961): Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základě obecně lingvis-
tickém, Praha. Anglická verze: A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on
a General Linguistic Basis, Academia Praha 1975. Nosek, J.( 1966a): Notes on Syntactic Condensation in Modern English. TLP, pp.281 -288. Nosek. J. (1966b): Contributions to the Syntax of the New English complex Sentence. AUC
Philologica, Monographia XIII, UK Praha. Nosek. J. (1971): Truncated Utterances in Modern Colloquial English. Philologica Pragensia 5, Prague Studies in English 14, pp. 89 - 108. Nosek. J.( 1974): The Ramification of Utterances in Modern English. A Contribution to
the Stylistics of Journalistic Language. Philologica Pragensia 17, pp.163 - 172. Quirk. R. - S. Greenbaum (1973): A University Grammar of English. Longman, London. Shopen. T. (1973): Ellipsis as grammatical indeterminacy. Foundations of Language 10, pp.
65-77.
Svindland, A. S. (1978): An Alternative Theory of Coordination. Lingua Vol 46, 1, pp. 29-48.
Thomas. A. L. (1979): Ellipsis: the interplay of sentence structure and context. Lingua 47, 1, pp. 43-68.
Vachek. J. (1955): Some Thoughts on the So-called Complex Condensation in Modern
English. SPFFBU A 3, pp. 63 - 77. Vachek. J. (1974): Selected Chapters from English Syntax. SPN Praha. Vachek. J. (1976): Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics, Academia Praha.
-105 -
GLOSSARY OF SYNTATIC TERMS
PART ONE: ENGLISH - CZECH
abbreviated > contracted
- form (eg. / have > I've) absolute construction
(independent of the structure to which it is attached, eg. The coffee drunk, she took the cups and left.)
acceptability
action verb
active sentence
addition
additive conjunct,eg. besides adjunct (a type of adverbials) adverbial
- of cause
- of concession
- of condition
- of frequency
- of manner/manner adv.
- of measure
- of place
- of purpose
- of reason
- of time /time adverbial
obligatory (a required complementation for some verbs, eg. Yo«r children are outside. All roads lead to Rome.) sentence adverbial
affected role affirmative
- response alternative (choice) amalgam
sentence amalgam (fusion)
eg. I saw him.
He came. = > I saw him come. ambiguity ambiguous analysis
discourse analysis
z/kráceny *'
z/krácená, redukovaná forma
absolutní konstrukce
přijatelnost (formy apod.)
akční sloveso
věta aktivní
přidání, adice
adiční příslovečné určení
adjunkt, typ adverb. urč.
příslovečné určení
příčiny
přípustky
podmínky
frekvence
způsobu
míry
místa
účelu
důvodu
času
nutné (nepostradatelné)
příslovečné určené větné; vztahující se k celé větě sém. role „zasažený" dějem kladný
kladná odpověď alternativ-a, -ní (výběr) splynulina větný amalgam
mnohoznačnost, víceznačnost mnoho-, víceznačný rozbor, analýza analýza promluvy
-106-
sentence -text -
analytical (vs. synthetic)
- form (you will go vs. Czech pujdes)
- language anaphora anaphoric
- reference
antecedent (e.g. head of an NP preceding
its postmodifier cf. time to go home) anticipate
anticipatory subject (cf. IT)
eg. It's nice to see you. antithesis (vs. thesis)
cf.clauses with BUT antonymy
aphoristic sentence (a subtype of minor
sentences based on rather abnormal /
irregular patterns, cf. proverbs and
sayings, eg. Easy come, easy
go. Like father, like son.) aposiopesis (amputation of sentence end) apposition
classifying -
close -, restrictive
qualifying -
evaluative -
loose -, non-restrictive appositive
- clause
asterisked form (cf. *hego)
i.e. a usage that is not acceptable asyndetic (cf. linkage) attribute attributive clause actor/agent agentive role agentless
- passive agreement > concord animate (vs. inanimate)
- subject
- vět/ná
- textu/textová analytický vs. syntetický analytický tvar; forma
- jazyk
anafora, zpětná reference anaforický, odkazující zpět anaforická(zpětná)reference člen předcházející jiný vět. člen (často jako jeho řídící výraz) anticipovat, předjímat podmet, který odkazuje na pravý podmět;anticipační IT antitéze vs. teze ve větách se spojkou BUT protiklad, antonymie věta aforistická
aposiopese přístavek, apozice
- klasifikující
- těsný
- kvalifikující
- hodnotící
- volný přístavkový přístavková věta forma s hvězdičkou, nepřijatelný tvar asyndetický, bezespoječný přívlastek, atribut přívlastková věta
aktor, konatel/nositel děje sém. role konatele neagentní, bez konatele
- pasívum shoda životný
- podmět
background
- backgrounding (device) base
pozadí (v textu)
prostředek vytvářející textové pozadí základ, báze
verbal -
block language (cf. omission of operators and items of lower communicative value in labels, notices, headlines, etc. eg. For sale, No entry)
body language (a communication using body movement,gestures)
bottom-up processing
(interpreting the lowest-level units first,then proceeding to an interpretation of the rank above,eg.sentence members sentence) vs. top-down p.
bracketing (cf. sentence analysis)
branching - tree
method of a branching tree
slovesný -blokovýjazyk
komunikace těles, pohyby analýza zdola nahoru
užívání závorek při větném rozboru
větvení
větvený strom
znázornění vět. vztahů metodou větveného stromu
cataphora
cataphoric reference catenative verb (a lexical verb that governs another verb eg.
try to run) Causative
- verb (/made him laugh.) cause
chronological
- sequence (cf. "time-sequence") classifying (predication)
clausal
clause - (a part of a larger sentence complex) active clause action -adverbial -
- of concession
- of manner
- of purpose
- of reason
- of result
- of time appositive clause attributive -comment -comparative -
C
odkaz směrem dopředu, katafora kataforický odkaz, reference katenativní sloveso
kauzativní, příčinný kauzativní sloveso příčina
časový, chronologický
- sled klasifikující (predikace) větný (u závislých vět) věta jako součást souvětí
věta ve tvaru aktivním
- akční/dějová
- adverbiální
- přípustková
- způsobu
- účelová
- důvodová
- výsledková
- časová, temporální
- přístavková
- přívlastková
- komentář
- srovnávací
- 108-
complement -
compound -
concessive -
conditional -
copular -
embedded -
final -
finite -
infinitive -
initial -
medial -
negative -
nominal -
nonfinite -
nonrestrictive
object -
parenthetic -
participle -
passive -
subject -
subordinate -
superordinate -clause element/member clause structure cleft sentence (/ like Paul. >
It's Paul I like.) coherence (semantic links
between text-segments) cohesion (formal links
between text-segments) command
softened - (Pass me the salt, please.) communicative
- approach
- competence (the ability to use language effectively in a given speech community)
- dynamism
- intention
- performance (the real language use)
- sentence types
- situation
- strategy comment clause compactness comparative complement complementation
verb - ( - of the verb)
- doplňková souvětí souřadné věta přípustková
- podmínková
- se sponovým slovesem
- zapuštěná
- finální
- určitá, finitní
- infinitiv/ní
- počáteční, iniciální zaujímající střed.pozici záporná, negativní nominální
neurčitá
neomezující platnost
předmětová, objektová
vsuvková
participiální
pasivní
subjektová
závislá, podřízená
nadřízená větný člen věty závislé větná struktura rozštěpená věta, vytýkací důrazový opis sepětí textu (významové)
koheze, spojitost textu v rovině formální příkaz
zmírněný příkaz komunikativní
- přístup
- kompetence
výpovědní dynamičnost komunikativní záměr
- performance
typ vět podle komunikativní modality komunikativní situace
- strategie věta-komentář sevřenost stupňovací doplněk doplnění doplnění slovesa
- 109-
complex sentence
complex transitive predication
eg. I saw him come. complexity (cf. grammatical complexity) composition compound sentence concessive, of concession concord, agreement
grammatical
notional -
- of proximity (the verb agrees
with the number of a nearby N) eg. None of my guests agree... condensation condensed structure condensed sentence structure condenser
sentence -conjunct (adverbials whose function
is to relate clauses sentence,
paragraphs, e.g. first, next, moreover,
namely on the other hand, however..) conjunction
coordinate/coordinating
subordinate/subordinating
simple
compound
correlative connectivity (see linkage) connector (sentence connector)
= a word, phrase, clause whose
function is to link linguistic units conducive
- questions constraints on use
contact word/s (e.g. well, now, you know) content
- clause contraction
contracted form, contraction context
linguistic
extra-linguistic
non-verbal
verbal
situational
pragmatic (empirical) contextually bound contextually recoverable
- souvětí podřadné komplexně tranzitivní predikace
- složitost, srov. gramatická složitost skládání vět do vět. celků souvětí souřadné
přípustkový shoda
- gramatická
- významová
- - podle nejbližšího subst.
kondenzace kondenzát
- větný kondenzát
- kondenzor
- větný -
- konjunkty
spojka
slučovací
po d řadící
jednoduchá
složená
korelativní spojitelnost
konektor, spojovací výraz
návodný návod ná otázka omezení v užití kontaktová slova obsah
obsahová věta krácení, zkrácení z/krácená forma kontext
- jazykový/lingvistický
- mimojazykový
- neverbální
- verbální
- situační
- pragmatický kontextově závislý (vázaný) vyvoditelný z kontextu
-110-
cooccurrence
cooperative principles/maxims (be true,be brief,be relevant be clear)
coordination
coordinator (a conjunction used in coordination, cf. and, but, or...)
coordination polysyndetic -
copula (see "link/ing verb")
actional copula (eg. They got married.)
copulative verb > link/ing verb)
creative
creativity
souvýskyt
principy kooperace mezi mluvčím a adresátem
koordinace spojka souřadící,
- koordinační koordinace
- pomocí více spoj. výrazů spona
dějová spona sponové sloveso tvořivý tvořivost
D
datival object declarative
- sentence (cf. statement) (to) decode
deep structure (to) delete
deletion (cf. also omission) dependent (subordinate)
- clause
desiderative > optative > wish -
- clause determine determiner deviant deviation direct
- speech act directive
directives (sentences which instruct someone to do s.t.)
- impositive directives (speaker imposes his authority over the addressee, cf. "order")
- non-impositive directives (speaker leaves it to the hearer whether he reacts, cf. "advice")
discontinuous
discontinuous structure
= the splitting of a grammatical construction by the insertion of another unit
- datívní předmět
- oznamovací
- věta oznamovací
- dekódovat
- hloubková struktura
- vypustit/vynechat
- vypuštění
- závislý
- věta závislá
- prací
- věta
- určit/determinovat
- určující výraz, determinátor
- odchylující se (od normy)
- úchylka
- přímý
přímý mluvní/řečový akt
direktivní
direktivní věty
- autoritativní, direktivní v. neautoritativní direktivní věty
přerušený, diskontinuální
- - á struktura
-111-
discourse distribution
ditransitive verb (a verb that takes two objects, eg. give) dynamic
dynamism (communicative d.)
promluva, diskurz
- distribuce
- ditranzitivní sloveso (sloveso se dvěma předm.)
- dynamický
výpovědní dynamismus (dynamičnost)
E
echo question
eg. Have you got my knife? Have I got your knife? embedding (inserting of one
unit into another)
- multiple embedding embedded clause emphasis emphasizer
empty (dummy) subject encode
endophoric reference
(the clue lies within the text)
end-focus principle
end-weight principle
ellipsis (omission of elements that can be recovered from context or our knowledge of language code)
- grammatical ellipsis ^-rf°^
- lexical ellipsis
- contextual ellipsis ellipted (omitted) element elliptical
elision > grammatical elipsis
emphasis
emphasize
emphasizer
empirical > pragmatic context evaluative
- exclamation (How nice!)
- predication evaluated
evaluator(the one who evaluates)
eg. in / like the book, "I" = evaluator, "the book" = evaluated
event
exclamations
- echo exclamation explicit
ozvěnová otázka
- zapuštění, vložení
- několikanásobné -
- zapuštěná věta, tj. vložená do jiné věty
- důraz, emfáze
- zdůrazňující výraz
- prázdný podmět
- zakódovat endoforická reference
- princip „ohnisko na konec věty"
- princip „těžkého konce" věty
- elipsa
- - gramatická
- - lexikální
- - kontextová
- vynechaný/vypuštěný člen
- ■ eliptický
elize
- důraz, emfáze
- zdůraznit
- zdůrazňující výraz empirický, zkušenostní kontext
- hodnotící
- - zvolání
- - predikace
- hodnocený
- hodnotící osoba
událost zvolání
- ech o-zvolání, ozvěnové -
- explicitní, zjevný
-112-
exophoric reference (the clue lies outside the text) extralinguistic
- factors extraposition
exoforická reference
mimojazykový mimojazykové faktory extrapozice, vytčení větného členu
F
factive predication
e.g. He managed to come. vs.
non-factive: He wanted to come. final clause
- position fixed
- word order
- w. o. language foreground foregrounding device formal links fossilized sentences frame
sentence -framing
fronting (eg. Paul Hike.) function
primary -
secondary -functional sentence perspective
predikace faktová
věta finální
koncová pozice
pevný, ustálený
pevný slovosled
jazyk s pevným slovosledem
textové popředí
prostředek k vytvoření textového popřeď
formální spoje, sepětí
ustrnulé větné vazby
rámec
větný rámec
proces vytváření rámce
vysouvání vět. členu na začátek věty
funkce
- primární
- sekundární funkční větná perspektiva aktuální členění větné
generic -- subject, eg. A horse is a useful animal. -genitival object
gerund -given information -
(vs. "new" information) grounding (foregrounding and
backgrounding)
generický, obecný
- podmět genitívni předmět gerundium daná informace (vs. nová informace) proces vytváření text. popředí a pozadí („zakotvení textu")
H
head
- clause (see main clause)
- of a noun phrase
-113-
- of a verb phrase hierarchy highlighting hyper-syntax hyper-syntactic hypotactic hypotaxis
- výraz verbální fráze hierarchie
zdůraznění, zvýraznění nadvětná syntax nadvětný, hypersyntaktický hypotaktický hypotaxe
identifying / indentificatory
- predication illocutionary
- act
- force imperative implicit inanimate
incoherent vs. coherent incomplete
- sentence indirect
- command
- question (He asked if I was there.)
- speech (vs. direct or
semi-direct speech)
- speech act (eg. It's cold in
here. = Close the window.)
- request infinitive
- clause
- construction informal asides information gap information structure
(ordering of elements according
to the speaker's/ writer's
perception of receiver's knowledge) inherent
inherent object initiator of communication intensifier
(a word/phrase that adds emphasis
or intensity eg. very nice) intensive (predication) = with
a copula or other link verb interrogative
- sentence
- identifikující, ztotožňující
- - predikace
- ilokuční
- akt
- síla
- imperative, rozk. způsob
- implicitní, skrytý, ale vyvoditelný
- neživotný
- nespojený (cf. text)
- neúplný
- neúplná věta
- nepřímý
- - příkaz
- nepřímá otázka
- řeč (x řeč přímá nebo polopřímá)
- nepřímý mluvní akt
- nepřímá žádost
- infinitiv
- infinitivní věta
- - konstrukce
- neformální dodatky informační mezera
- struktura informace
inherentní, vnitřní
- předmět původce komunikace intenzifikátor, intenzifikující výraz
intenzívní predikace
tázací věta tázací
\
-114-
interrupted ( > discontinuous) - - přerušený
- utterance - přerušená výpověď
inversion (a reverse sequence of - inverze, změna slovosledu
elements, esp. S-P > P-S) (zejména subj. a pred.)
J
juxtaposed -    juxtaponovaný, prostě přiřazený
juxtaposed clause -    juxtaponovaná věta
juxtaposition (eg. I think/you are right.)        - juxtapozice
L
left-dislocation (Peter, I hate him.)
linear arrangement linearity
link/ing verb (see copula) linkage (connection)
přemístění vět. členu směrem vlevo
při zanechání zájmenné stopy
lineární uspořádání
lineárnost
sponové sloveso
spojem
M
main, principal
- clause manner (adverbial) marked (vs. unmarked) medial
- position
minor sentence (not constructed in a regular way or using abnormal patterns, eg. Like father, like son.
modal
modality
communicative -
deontic - (You must come.)
epistemic - (He must be five.)
modifier
monotransitive verb (one object
only, eg. I saw him.) - predication multiple
- coordination, eg.
/ like cars, and I like boats, and I like trains...
- negation
- subordination
hlavní hlavní věta způsob příznakový středový
středová pozice (ve větě) periferní, minoritní věty
modálni
modalita/modálnost
- komunikativní
- deontická
- jistotní, epistémická modifikující výraz, modifikátor monotranzitivní sloveso
- predikace několikanásobný nčkolikanás. coordinace
- zápor
- subordinace
-115-
N
negation
double negation
sentence negation
simple negation
multiple negation
partial negation
total negation NEG-transportation
(cf. I think he is not right.
> I don't think he is right.) negative
- particle (no, not) or negator
nominal
- expression clause
nominalization nominalized (structure) nonattributive adjective
(predicative adjective) non-finite (clauses) non-realization nonrestrictive noun phrase nucleus
sentence nucleus
- zápor (negace)
- dvojí zápor
- větný zápor jednoduchý zápor
- několikanásobný z.
- členský zápor
- celkový zápor přesun záporu
záporný
- záporná částice
- negující výraz
- nominální
- výraz
- věta nominalizace
- nominalizovaný
- predikativní adjektivum
- věta ve tvaru neurčitém
- nerealizace
- neomezující jmenná fráze jádro
- větné jádro
O
object
affected -created -direct -
double object construction indirect -prepositional -temporary -object clause
obligatory (vs. non-obligatory) omission > deletion
accidental omission omissible operator
optative clause (wish-clause) optional (sentence member) order (cf. word order)
předmět
- zasažený dějem
- vytvořený
- - přímý
- konstrukce se 2 předm. předmět nepřímý
- - předložkový
- dočasný
- věta předmětná
- nepostradatelný
- vynechání,vypuštění náhodné vynechání vypustitelný operátor
- věta prací
- vypustitelný, postradatelný
- pořádek slov, slovosled
-116-
paratactic
parataxis
parenthesis
parenthetic/al
parsing
participant
- of communication participle
present -past
performer (cf.actor/agent/doer)
peripheral
periphrastic
phrase
polar question > yes/no question
vs. non-polar > WH- question position
final -
initial -
medial -postmodification (modifier follows
the head,eg. a friend of mine ) postmodifier postponed
pragmatic
- context pragmatics
predeterminer (eg. both the boys) predicate
verbal -
nominal -predication premodifi cation premodifier prepositional
- phrase
- object presupposition
principal clause ( > main clause)
pro-form
adverbial - (here, there) nominal - (he, this, one) verbal - (do)
proposition
prosiopesis (amputation of sentence beginning, eg. (Have you) Got it?)
- parataktický parataxe
parenteze, vsuvka
- vsuvkový rozbor větný
- participant, účastník účastm'k komunikace participium, příčestí
- - přítomné
- - minulé konatel děje periferní, okrajový perifrastický, opisný fráze
- otázka zjišťovací
pozice
- koncová, finální
- - počáteční, iniciální
- - středová, mediální postmodifikace
postmodifikátor
- postponovaný (v pozici za řídícím výrazem)
pragmatický
- kontext
- pragmatika
- predeterminátor, výraz stojící před členem
- predikát, přísudek
- - slovesný
- - jmenný, nominální predikace
- premodifikace
- premodifikátor
- předložkový
- předložková fráze
- předložkový předmět presupozice, předpoklad
- hlavní věta
- proforma, zástupný výraz
- adverbiální
- - nominální
- - verbální
- propozice
- prosiopese
-117-
proximity
principle of proximity
(agreement - of the verb with a closely
preceding NP, eg. No one except his
supporters agree with him. pseudo-cleft sentence
eg. What I hate is syntax. punctuation
- mark
blízkost
princip shody s nejblíže předcházející jmen. frází
pseudorozštěpená věta
interpunkce interpunkční znaménko
Q
qualifying
- predication quantifier question
alternative -
(Will you travel by train or by boat?) conducive -echo -
exclamatory - (Hasn't she grown!) rhetorical -tag -yes/no -quotational compound (cf. forget-me-not)
kvalifikující
- predikace kvantifikátor otázka
- alternativní
- návodná echo-, ozvěnová -
- zvolací
- řečnická dovětek
- zjišťovací citátové kompozitum, citátová složenina
R
ramification
ramified utterance
rank structure (each rank is made up of the rank/s below, ie. sentence < clause/s < phrase/s)
reason
receiver J
potential -reciprocity a?;V r
recoverability
contextual -
textual -recoverable recursive
recursiveness (repeated application ;
of the same rule) j-nm&ps (to) reduce reduction
- větvení
- větvená výpověď hierarchicky uspořádaná struktura
- důvod příjemce (sdělení)
potenciální -vzájemnost rozpoznatelnost j
- z kontextu
- - z textu
- rozpoznatelný
- rekurzívní, opakovaný
- opakovaná aplikace určitého pravidla
redukovat
- redukce
-Im-
partial -
total -reduced form reference
anaphoric -
backward -
cataphoric -
distant -
endophoric - (the clue lies within the text)
exophoric - (the clue lies outside the text)
forward -
near -reflexive construction
(subject and predicate relate
to the same entity, e.g. He
washes himself.) relative clause
- pronoun
restrictive (vs. non-restrictive)
- modifier (essential part of the identity of another element e.g. My brother who lives in America
- as opposed to other brothers.) resultive (conjunct) resumptive clause(repeats as the
noun head a word/its variant,eg.
She expressed her belief in the
economic recovery, a belief that
was well founded.) rheme (see FSP) rhematic
rhetoric/al question
right-dislocation
role (eg. semantic, grammatical)
rules
constitutive -
regulative -run-on sentence
- částečná
- úplná redukovaná forma reference, odkaz
- anaforická, zpětná
- zpětná
- kataforická, odkazující dopředu
- vzdálená
- endoforická
- exoforická
- směrující dopředu
- blízká
reflexívní (zvratná) konstrukce
vztažná věta vztažné zájmeno omezující platnost modifikátor omezující platnost
výsledkové adverb, určení opakující, resumptivní
réma (větné jádro)
rematický
řečnická otázka
posun směrem vpravo
role (sémantická, gramatická)
pravidla
konstitutivní -
regulativní -nepromyšlená větná realizace (jak se udaří v toku řeči)
S
secondary - sekundární
- adjective (eg. milk chocolate) i.e.     -        - adjektivum a sequence of N 4- N in which the first noun functions as an adjective
-119 —
schemata (structures representing
stereotyped patterns) scope (e.g. scope of negation) shared knowledge (between the
speaker and his addressee) semantic roles
- of sentence/clause elements semi-clause
sentence
- element
- member
- pattern
grammatical -semantic -
- structure
simple sent, complex -composite -
multiple - contains one or more clauses as its constituents sentential
sentential relative clauses
eg. He likes grammar - which is remarkable.
situationally recoverable
splitting eg. We have nothing. In common.
spontaneous
- speech
statement > declarative sentence
- of general validity = of restricted validity static > stative
stative (expressing states of
affairs rather than actions) structure
structural parallelism subject generic
impersonal/nonpersonal personal \ preparatory (anticipatory IT) specific subject clause subordination
subordinator (a conjunction used
in subordination) substitution (the replacement of
one element by another) syndetic (vs. asyndetic)
schémata
dosah platnosti (negace) sdílená znalost (mezi mluvčím
a adresátem) sémantické role
- větných členů polověta
věta, větný
- člen
- člen
- vzorec
- gramatický
- sémantický
- větná struktura věta jednoduchá souvětí podřadné souvětí souřadné souvětí složité
větný
vztažné věty vztahující se k větě jako celku
vyvoditelný ze situace rozdělení, parcelace spontánní
- řeč
věta oznamovací, sdělení
sdělení obecné platnosti
sdělení omez. platnosti
statický
statický
statický
struktura
strukturní paralelismus podmět, subjekt
- generický
- neosobní
- osobní
- přípravný
- specifický podmětová, podmě tná věta vztah podřadící, subordinace spojka podřadící .
substituce (nahrazení) í     x:,^; ť
syndetický, spoječný (se spojkou)
-120-
syntagm (a string of elements
forming a unit in syntax) syntagmatic relation syntax
syntactic construction
- device (means)
- feature
- function
- of clause elements
- level sequence sequential subject
subjectless (clause) subjunct subordination subordinators
superordinate (vs. subordinate) surface structure
syntagma
syntagmatický vztah syntax, nauka o větě syntaktická konstrukce syntakticky prostředek
- rys syntaktická funkce
- větných členů
- rovina sled, sekvence
ve sledu, sekvenční podmět, subjekt bezpodmětná věta subjunkt, typ adverbia podřízenost, subordinace subordinační spojky nadřazený povrchová struktura
T.
tautology (A home dish is a home dish.) temporal
- adverbial temporal clause tendency
general tendency text (a stretch of spoken/written
language with a definable
communicative function (news,
report, poem) textual
- role texture theme thematic
top-down processing
(analysis of the highest-level
units first and then moving
downwards, eg. sentence >
sentence member) transformation transitive (predication)
mono-transitive
di-transitive
complex transitive transportation
NEG-transportation eg.
tautologie časový, temporální přísloveč věta časová tendence obecná tendence text
textový textová role textura téma tematický
analýza od nejvyšších jednotek k nejnižším
transformace
tranzitivní
monotranzitivní
di-tranzitivní
komplexně tranzitivní
přemístění
přemístění negativní částice
-121 -
I think you are not right. > I don't think you are right. tree diagram (branching tree) truncated
- utterance (elliptical)
větvený diagram kusý i kusá výpoveď
U
underlying structure ungrammatical structure unmarked utterance
- structure
fragmentary utterance
podkladová struktura struktura gramaticky nesprávná bezpříznakový výpověď
struktura výpovědi neúplná, kusá věta
valency (bonds that syntactic elements may form with each other)
validity general -restricted -
- to restrict the validity of an utterance
verbal (clause)
verbless (clause)
viewpoint subjunct
vocative
valence
platnost
obecná -
omezená -omezit platnost výpovědi
věta slovesná věta neslovesná postojové adverbium vokativ
W
whimperative (Would you pass me
the salt?) word order
- grammaticalized
- fixed (stable)
- free
Z
„zdvořilý" imperativ
slovosled
- gramatikalizovaný
- pevný
- volný
zero - nula
functional zero -    funkční nula
-  complementation -    nulové doplnění
(He is reading.), ie. the object can be inserted, eg. "a book", "a letter", etc.
- 122-
PART TWO: CZECH - ENGLISH
absolutní konstrukce adresát
adverbiale > příslovečné urč. adverbiální
adverzativní (odporovací)
agens (konatel)
akční
- přísudek, predikát
- sloveso aktivní (konstrukce) aktuální členění větné akuzativ
anafora, zpětný odkaz anaforická funkce analytický
- jazyk
- predikát aposiopese(vypuštění konce věty) asyndetické spojení
atribut > přívlastek atributivní, přívlastkový
absolute construction
addressee
adverbial
adverbial
adversative
agent/doer
action
- predicate
- verb
active (construction) functional sentence perspective accusative (case) anaphora
anaphoric function analytical
- language
- predicate aposiopesis asyndetic connection attribute attributive
B
bezpodmětný (bezpodmětý) báze, základ - slovesná
subjectless base
verbal -
citátové kompozitum citový postoj
quotational compound emotional attitude
D
deiktický děj
derivovaný, odvozený derivovaná větná struktura determinace determinovaný
deictic action derived
derived sentence structure
determination
determined
-123-
determinující deverbativní substantivum doplněk doplnění
doplňovací otázka dubitativní otázka důsledkový důvod
- determining deverbative noun
- complement
- complementation
- WH-question
- dubitative question
- consequent
- reason
E
elipsa
- gramatická
- kontextová
- situační elize
emocionálni > citový endofora
evaluativní, hodnotící exofora
ellipsis
grammatical -contextual -situational -
elision
emotional
endophora
evaluative
exophora
F
fakultativní
- členy větné fráze
nominální
verbální funkční větná perspektiva
optional, non-obligatory - sentence elements
phrase nominal -verbal -
functional sentence perspective
G
generický
genitiv
genitívni
gradace, stupňování gramatický
- větný vzorec
generic - genitive
genitive/genitival
gradation
grammatical
- sentence pattern
hlavní
- věta hloubková struktura hodnocení
H
main, principle
- clause deep structure evaluation
-124-
hodnocený hodnotící predikace hodnotící osoba holý
hypersyntax > nadvětná syntax
hypotaxe
hypotaktický
evaluated
evaluative predication
evaluator
simple
hyper-syntax
hypotaxis
hypotactic
ilokuční - síla imperativ imperativní intinitiv intenzita intenzifikátor interakce intranzitivní
illocutionary
- force (IF) imperative imperative infinitive intensity intensifier interaction intransitive
juxtaponovany - juxtaposed
juxtaponovana veta -        - clause
eg. This is the man I saw.
juxtapozice - juxtaposition
K
kat afora
kataforická (funkce)
kauzalita
kauzálni
klad
kladný
koherence (textu) koheze (sepětí, spojitost) komunikativní
- záměr konatel kondenzace kondenzor
větný -kondenzovaný
konektivm funkce > spojovací konektor > spojovací výraz
- cataphora cataphoric causality causal
- affirmation
- affirmative
- coherence (of the text) cohesion
- communicative
- - intention
- actor/doer
- condensatin
- condenser
- sentence -condensed
- connective connector
-125-
kontaktová (funkce) kontext
- verbální
- situační
- pragmatický kontextový kontextově (vázaný) koordinace koordinační (vztah) kvalifikace kvalifikační kvalifikující kvantifikátor kvantifikující
contact (function)
- context
verbal -
- situational -
- pragmatic -
- contextual
- contextually bound
- coordination
- coordinative
- qualification
- qualifying
- qualifying
- quantifier quantifying
L
lineární
- sled lineárnost
linear
- sequence linearity
M
míra
místo
místní
mluvčí
mluvní akt
mluvený
modalita
- větná, komunikativní modálni částice
measure
place
local
speaker
speech act
spoken
modality
communicative modality modal particle
nástroj (jako prostředek činnosti)
negace > zápor
negátory
několikanásobný
- podmět neosobní (konstrukce) nepřechodná (intranzitivní) slovesa nepřímý nepřímá otázka neurčitá forma slovesná neurčitost (při identifikaci)
N
instrument negation negators multiple
- subject impersonal (construction) intransitive verbs indirect
indirect question nonfinite verb form indefiniteness
-126-
nevypustitelný nominalizace nositel děje
nutnost (modálni kategorie)
O
non-omissible nominalization carrier of an activity necessity
objekt objektivní objektový obligatórni, nutný
- adverbiální určení obrácený vztah
obsah
obsahová věta odkazovači slovo odporovací, adverzativní odpověď odstavec
odvozený, derivovaný ohnisko
omezená platnost omezení
omezit platnost (výpovědi) opakování (pravidla) operátor (negace) optativní, prací věty otázka
- alternativní (Shall we go by bus ortrain?)
- deliberativní
- doplňovací
- dubitativní
- návodná
- nepřímá
- ozvěnová
- přímá
- řečnická
- zjišťovací oznamovací věta
object
- objective
- object
- obligatory
- - adverbial
- reverse relation
- content
- content clause
- referential word
- adversative
- answer, response
- paragraph derived
- focus restricted validity
- restriction
to restrict the validity (of an utterance)
- recursiveness
- operator of negation optative, WISH-clauses
- question
- alternative -
deliberative -WH-question -dubitative -
- conducive -indirect -
- echo-question direct -rhetoric/al -
YES/NO question, polar q.
- statement, declarative s.
parafráze parataktický parataxe parcelace (vět)
periphrase paratactic parataxis splitting
-127-
parentetický parenteze
participant (sémantická role)
participium, příčestí
partikule, částice
partner komunikačního aktu
pasivní (infinitiv)
pasívum
opisné -performance
performativní sloveso (eg.
/ name the ship Beauty.) podmět
- lokativní -
- neosobní
- neživotný
- obecný
- osobní
- životný podřadící, hypotaktické podřadné souvětí podřadnost
polypredikativní struktura polysyndetický, vícespoječný posluchač postoj
- citový, emocionální
- hotnotící, evaluativní
- modálni povrchová struktura pragmatický (kontext) pragmatika prázdný (podmet) predikace
- dějová
- identifikační
- klasifikující
- kvalifikující predikát, přísudek
- akční
- analytický
- dějový > akční
- dynamický
- klasifikační
- kvalifikační
- nominalizovaný
- postojový
- statický predikační proformy
parenthetic
parenthesis
participant
participle
particle
partner, locutor passive (infinitive) passive
periphrastic -performance performative verb
subject
locative -
impersonal -
inanimate -
general -
personal -
animate -hypotactic complex sentence hypotaxis
polypredicative structure polysyndetic listener/hearer attitude
emotional -
evaluative -
modal -surface structure pragmatic context pragmatics
empty (dummy) subject predication
action/al -
identifying
classifying
qualifying predicate
action/al -
analytical -
action/al -
dynamic -
classificatory -
qualifying -
nominalized -
attitudinal -
statal/static -predicate pro-forms
-128-
predikativní predikátor
presupozice, předpoklad promluva pronominalizace pronominální (podmět) propozice
prosiopese (vypuštění začátku věty, eg.Areyougoinghome? > Going home?)
průvodní děj - událost
přání
předložkový
přechodné sloveso > tranzitivní přechodník
překrývání (větných členů)
příčestí > participium příčina
přídavné jméno druhotné
přijatelnost (formy)
příjemce (adresát) výpovědi
přímý
přípustka
přípustkový
přirovnání
příslovečné určení > adverbiále přístavek
těsný -
volný -
výčtový -
vysvětlující -posudek, predikát přívlastek, atribut přívlastková věta přívlastkové expletivum
(bloody exam)
predicative
predicator
presupposition
discourse
pronominalisation
pronominal (subject)
proposition
prosiopesis
accompanying activity
- event wish
prepositional
transitive verb
transgressive
overlapping of sentence
members/ elements
participle
cause
secondary adjective
acceptability
addressee, recepient
direct
concession
concessive
comparison
adverbial
apposition
close -, restrictive
loose -, non-restrict.
enumerative -
explanatory -predicate attribute attributive clause attributive expletive
R
recepient, příjemce děje redukce
- částečná
- úplná reference
- anaforická
- blízká
recepient reduction partial -total -reference anaphoric near -
-129-
- endoforická
- exoforická
- kataforická
- zpětná reflexívní, zvratná forma rekce
rekurzívnost relační predikát réma
rematická část restriktivní atribut rozkaz
rozkazovací věta rozvíjející vět. členy
rozvité vět. členy
endophoric —
- exophoric -cataphoric -backward -
- reflexive form
- government
- recursiveness
- relational predicate rheme
rhematic part
- restrictive attribute command
imperative sentence non-obligatory, optional sentence
elements extended sent, members
Ř
řeč
- nepřímá
- polopřímá
- přímá řečový, mluvní akt řečnická otázka
speech indirect -semi-direct -direct -
speech act
rhetoric/al question
S
sdělná, komunikativní hodnota sémantická
- role
- struktura sémantika shoda slovosled
- pevný
- volný složité souvětí slučovací spojky souřadící, parataktický souřadnost, parataxe souvětí
- podřadné
- souřadné
- složené souvýskyt
splývání vět. struktur
communicative value semantic
- role
- struktura semantics
concord, agreement word order
fixed -
loose -multiple sentence copulative conjunctions • paratactic parataxis
composite, multiple sentence complex sentence compound sentence multiple sentence > cooccurrence amalgamation
-130-
spojka
spojovací výraz spona
sponové sloveso srovnání (v souvětí) statický struktura
hloubková
podkladová -
povrchová
- souvětí středník stupňování styl
subjekt > podmět
subjektivní
subjektová pozice
subjektový
substantivum
substantivizace
substantívni
substituce, nahrazení
syndetické spojení
syntagma
syntaktická konstrukce syntaktický vztah syntakticko-sémantická strukt. syntetický predikát
- conjunction . connector
- copula
- link/ing verb, copulative verb
- comparison static, statal
- structure
- deep structure underlying structure
- surface structure composite sent, structure
- semi-colon gradation style
- subject
- subjective
- subject position
- subject substantive (noun)
- substantivisation substantive
- substitution
- syndetic connection
- syntagm
syntactic construction syntactic relation
- syntactico-semantic structure
- synthetic predicate
T
tautologie (věty typu „X is X",
Domácí strava je domácí strava.) tázací
- dovětky těsné spojení transformace tranzitivní, přechodný téma (vs. réma) tematická část temporální, časový textový
textová rovina
- elipsa
- syntax textura
tautology
interrogative
- question tags
- close connection transformation
- transitive
- theme thematic part
- temporal text/textual
- text level
- textual ellipsis
- text syntax
- texture
-131-
U
účel
účelový
účinek
účinková věta událost
řečová -úmysl
určitost (při identifikaci) určitý tvar slovesný
purpose of purpose result
clause of result event
speech -intention definiteness finite verb form
V
valence
vazba polovětná vedlejší věta
- obsahová
- doplňková
- podmětová
- předmětná
- příslovečná
- časová
- místní
- podmínková
- příčinná
- přípustková
- srovnávací
- účelová
- účinková, důsledková
- způsobová přístavková přívlastková
- vztažná vedlejší promluvová linie verbonominální
- přísudek věta (samostatná)
(v SOUvětí) - '
bezagentní emfatická (důrazová) hlavní
jednočlenná ,>.,:,.;*
kladná
obsahová
oznamovací
podmětová
prací
valency
semi-clausal structure dependent/subordinate cl. content clause complement clause subject clause object clause adverbial clause
- of time, temporal
- of place, location
- of condition
- of cause
- of concession
- of comparison
- of purpose
- of result
- of manner appositive attributive
- relative secondary communicative line > verbo-nominal
- predicate sentence clause
agentless sentence/clause *
emphatic s.
main, principal
one-member/element
affirmative
content
statement, declarative s. subject clause optative
-132-
přívlastková
rozkazovací
rozvitá
tázací
vedlejší
vložená
vztažná
- nerestriktivní
- restriktivní zvolací záporná
větosled větnv člen
- holý
- rozvitý
- několikanásobný větný typ
větný vzorec
gramatický -
sémantický -vlastní podmět vsuvka, parenteze všeobecný (lidský) konatel výčitka
východisko, téma výpovědi výjimka
- zpravidla vylučovací otázka výpověď (vs. věta)
kusá -
větvená -výpovědní dynamismus
(dynamičnost)
rozložení výpověd. dynam, vypustitelný vypuštění výsledek
vytčení vět. členů
- do pozice počátku věty (Syntax I hate.)
vytýkací, důrazová konstrukce vztah
- posesívní
- příčiny a následku vztažné zájmeno vztažný
- attributive cl.
- imperative s.
- extended
- interrogative s.
- dependent, subordinate
- inserted
- relative
- - non-restrictive
- - restrictive
- exclamatory s. negative
- sequence of clauses
- sentence member/element
- - simple
- - extended
- - multiple
- sentence type
- sentence, clause pattern
- grammatical sentence p.
- semantic sentence p.
- subject proper
- parenthesis
- general human agent reproach
- theme
- exception
- to the rule
- adversative question utterance
truncated utterance
- ramified utterance
- communicative dynamism
- distribution of com. d.
- omissible
- deletion, omission
- result extraposition
- fronting
- construction for highlighting
- relation
possessive
- of cause and effect
- relative pronoun
- relative
- 133-
základní
záměr
zápor
členský
úplný
větný záporná částice záporná tázací věta záporný výraz závorky
zjišťovací otázka zdroj informace zdůrazňující slova známá informace způsob (adverb. způsobu) zřetel
zřetelové adverbium zvolací věta zvolání žádost
basic, elementary
intention
negation
partial negation
total negation
sentence negation
negative particle
negative interrogative sentence
negative expression
brackets
yes/no question
source of information
emphasizers
given information
manner
regard
adverbial of regard exclamatory sentence exclamation request
BRNO
im
Určeno:
Autor:
Název:
Vydání:
Místo a rok vydání:
Nakladatelství:
Počet stran:
Odpovědný redaktor:
Tiskárna:
AA - VA:
Náklad:
Tématická skupina:
Cena:
Číslo nominál. skupiny:
Vydavatelské oprávnění:
pro posluchače FF a PdF, PGS, rekvalifikanty
Doc. PhDr. Jarmila Tárnyiková, CSc.
CHAPTERS FROM MODERN ENGLISH SYNTAXI. (A COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH)
II. přepracované Olomouc 1993
Vydavatelství Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci 133
Prof. PhDr. Edvard L o t k o, CSc. ediční středisko RUP Olomouc, č. z. 70/93 8,70 - 9,12 600 výtisků
17/92 38,- Kč
63/11/10
MK ČSR č. 21.514/79 ze dne 4. 12. 1979
MZK-UK Brr
«2610003878»
2610003878