Functional sentence perspective: the 40-ies - the beginning of the 60-ies of the 20th century

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE: THE 40-ies - THE BEGINNING OF THE 60-ies OF THE 20^th CENTURY

semantic syntactic communicative linguist

The article gives complex analysis of the theories and ideas of FSP in the researches of the 40-ies - the beginning of the 60-ies of the 20th century on the basis of five approaches to this phenomenon: semantic, syntactic, logic-grammatical, communicative and morphological. The advantages and disadvantages of these investigations were analyzed showing some interconnections between them and further perspectives.

Key words: functional sentence perspective, sentence, utterance, subject, predicate, grammatical subject, grammatical predicate, the given, the new.

АНОТАЦІЯ

АКТУАЛЬНЕ ЧЛЕНУВАННЯ РЕЧЕННЯ: 40-І РР. - ПОЧАТОК 60-Х РР. ХХ СТ.

Огієнко К., викладач кафедри іноземних мов з латинською та українською мовами Луганського державного медичного університету

У статті комплексно висвітлені ідеї актуального членування речення в роботах 40-х - початку 60-х рр. ХХ ст. на основі п'яти підходів до кваліфікації цього явища: семантичного, синтаксичного, логіко-граматичного, комунікативного та морфологічного. Проаналізовано переваги та недоліки цих досліджень, а також подано перспективи подальших досліджень.

Ключові слова: актуальне членування речення, речення, висловлення, суб'єкт, предикат, підмет, присудок, дане, нове.

АННОТАЦИЯ

АКТУАЛЬНОЕ ЧЛЕНЕНИЕ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ: 40-Е ГГ. - НАЧАЛО 60-Х ГГ. ХХ В.

Огиенко Е., преподаватель кафедры иностранных языков с латинским и украинским языками Луганского государственного медицинского университета

В статье комплексно освещены идеи актуального членения предложения в работах 40-х - начала 60-х гг. ХХ в. на основе пяти подходов к квалификации этого явления: семантического, синтаксического, логико-грамматического, коммуникативного и морфологического. Проанализированы преимущества и недостатки этих исследований, а также указаны перспективы дальнейших исследований.

Ключевые слова: актуальное членение предложения, предложение, высказывание, субъект, предикат, подлежащее, сказуемое, данное, новое.

Problem statement. The majority of researches devoted to functional sentence perspective (further FSP) give only partial analysis of the diachronical development of this phenomenon (Yu. V. Popov, O. L. Pumpyanskiy, I. I. Kovtunova, V. Ye. Shevyakova, A. P. Zagnitko). Thus, absence of complex exhaustive works determines the actuality of our research of the corresponding period.

The analysis of recent publications showed that modern researchers pay more attention to practical usage of FSP. Thus, Ye. V. Stryha studies lexical means of theme and rheme emphasis in English and Ukrainian [16], A. F. Satarova analyzes the influence of FSP on word order in French [14], M. Vintoniv tries to determine the status of rheme in the structure of the utterance [6], M. I. Khvorostiana analyzes the influence of FSP on word order in English [21], etc. Sometimes they refer to earlier investigations but do not try to show the whole process of FSP development.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the works and research papers of the 40-ies - the beginning of the 60-ies of the 20^th century concerning FSP or ideas close to it. The tasks of our article include 1) comprehensive coverage of the ideas of FSP in the works of the 40-ies - the beginning of the 60-ies of the 20^th century (without representatives of Prague linguistic circle) on the basis of five approaches to the qualification of this phenomenon (as they were determined by O. O. Selivanova and S. G. Ilyenko): semantic, syntactic, logic-grammatical, communicative and morphological; 2) finding the sources of the views of the researches of this period; 3) showing interconnections between views and what principally new in the sphere of FSP was done by certain linguist; 4) tracing the influence of these views and ideas on further periods of FSP investigation.

The main body of the research. Detailed study of the research papers of this period showed that many scientists turned to the problems concerning FSP (of course using other terminology) while analyzing word order and intonation.

Ye. I. Korenevskiy published an article in which he described his syntactic lessons at school. In particular, he used to give the tasks the aim of which was to observe the changes of the semantic meanings happening with the change of the word order [10, p. 37]. Of course the researcher neither used the term FSP nor deepened his research of the corresponding question, but he was sure that the sentences with different word order have different sense.

Ch. Bally considered that any utterance of the thought with the help of the language is determined logically, psychologically and linguistically. The scientist pointed out the impossibility to differentiate these aspects precisely, and in his research he paid attention only to logical aspect.

According to this aspect, a sentence is the simplest possible form of thought expression [3, p. 43]. A sentence consists of two parts. The first part is a correlative of the process which forms the idea and is called dictum. The second part contains the main part of the sentence without which the sentence is impossible, i.e. the expression of modality, correlative operation done by the subject able to think. Modal verb serves as a logical and analytical expression of modality, while modal subject serves as its subject. Together they form modus [3, p. 44].

Ch. Bally distinguished two components of the statement: thought, intention, reason, and the main content, theme. Reason is the purpose of the utterance. The researcher noted the existence of cases when only reason (at least evidently) is present in speech. Such contraction happens as a result of inclination toward the least effort and effectiveness which leads to restriction of thought. Linguist called a sentence with one articulated part monorheme. A properly organized speech does not usually have psychologically or linguistically absolute monorhemes.

Monorheme expresses logically complete thought and can reconstruct its any part if it is in the centre of attention and forms the reason. In the language, in its initial state, monorheme expresses either phenomenon which makes up the object of dictum, or the feeling which lies in the base of modus. Thus, Ch. Bally called monorheme “a projector with the help of which it is possible to illuminate any part of logical utterance” [3, p. 63].

The conversion from monorheme to dirheme, in Ch. Bally's opinion, happened by compaction of monorhemes into one utterance [3, p. 64].

The researcher identified three types of the utterance which differ by the grammatical relation between two parts: coordination (two sentences are coordinated if the first sentence is the theme for the second sentence) [3, p. 65], segmented sentence (one sentence which was created from two coordinated sentences but their connection appears incomplete and allows to distinguish both parts) [3, p. 70] and compression of two monorhemes (gives bound form, fusion) [3, p. 82].

L. M. Bulgakova used semantic approach while studying the word order. The researcher supposed that word order in English is a semantic- syntactic category. Its grammatical function consists in the sense of the sentence and the deviations of the most wide-spread firm word order are aimed to express the sense of the thought better and are determined by the reasons of the semantic plan [4, p. 24].

Analyzing the sentences with direct word order and inversion the research worker pointed out that purely formal approach does not show the differences between these sentences.

In the sentences with inversion L. M. Bulgakova distinguished two types. The first type comprises descriptive sentences where new objects, which are met in this context for the first time, appear at the end of the sentence in order to be somehow emphasized which does not disturb the calm tone of the story. The second type includes emphatic sentences where the placement of subject after predicate is caused by the necessity to underline special meaning of the appearance of the certain person or thing in a known location [4, p. 25].

The approach to FSP of P. S. Popov may be characterized as logic- grammatical. Comparing judgment and sentence, the language expert used two notions - логический субъект and предикат on the one hand and логическое подлежащее and сказуемое on the other, though he did not show the differences between them.

We should state here that in English these terms have the same translation - logical subject and logical predicate, which implies such "dual" terminology in Russian, Ukrainian, etc. while in English these terms just show belonging to logic. Many scientists (such as O. Jespersen, V. Mathesius, B. A. Ilyish) do not support such a variety of terms which in fact overload linguistics. For example, V. V. Vinogradov pointed out that the mixing of grammatical subject and predicate with logical subject and predicate were present in Russian grammar for a long time [5, p. 5].

P. S. Popov considered that if subject and predicate are treated in exclusively logical sense we may see that in those sentences where one logical predicate follows another predicate the previous one unites with the first subject [13, p. 28].

P. S. Popov paid some attention to the means of FSP. For him, logical accent is a tool to emphasize the predicate. In the range of sentence, it allows to show the difference in the judgments. In some languages, along with the accent, the place of the word in the sentence is important for the meaning of this sentence. The placement of the word on the first place is often the means to emphasize logical predicate.

The view of L. Tesniere at that time differed considerably from the scheme of traditional grammar which was based on logical principles, exposing the opposition of subject and predicate. Subject is a thing about which something is told, and predicate is something told about subject. Thus, in a sentence Alfred parle «Alfred speaks» Alfred is a subject and parle is a predicate [19, p. 118].

L. Tesniere did not agree with this opposition and expressed the opinion that such “antecedent formal logic” does not concern linguistics and “in any language no purely linguistic fact causes the opposition of subject and predicate” [19, p. 119].

For L. Tesniere the sentence Alfred parle consists not of two elements Alfred and parle but of three - Alfred, parle and a transition which unites them and without which a sentence would be impossible. The researcher called the two-element analysis superficial and morphological [19, p. 23-24]. L. Tesniere considered that the central element in the majority of European languages is a verb node [19, p. 117].

Some ideas of FSP may be found in the researches of T. V. Stroyeva [17]. The investigator believed that the inversion in the sentence is connected with logical accent which does not depend on word order and may stress any word. Accentuation is possible only in vivid oral speech, while in written form we use word order. The most important parts of sentence are those on the last position.

V. T. Kolomiyets also considered some questions of FSP studying word order. In her opinion, word order is the means of expression of stylistic differences of the sentences with the same content and grammatical structure [8, p. 117].

Direct word order is an ordinary means of composing the sentences in which grammatical subject is, at the same time, a logical subject expressing the notion known for both speakers, while grammatical predicate is, at the same time, a logical predicate including notions new for the listener which the speaker adds to the notion of subject in order to characterize it from a new, important for this moment, point. The predicate is logically stressed which is expressed with the help of barely noticeable expiratory accentuation of the predicate or often - only negatively - with the absence of the stress on any other part of the sentence.

When it is necessary to highlight the predicate, the stress alone cannot fulfill this task. In this case, the predicate should be placed on the first place and only then be stressed. The linguist determined this notion as the inversion of the direct word order [8, p. 119].

The researches of P. V. Tavanets concern mainly logic and utterance, but, studying such notions as subject and predicate he pointed that logical categories do not often coincide with grammatical subject and predicate [18, p. 38].

The analysis of the research papers of V. V. Vinogradov showed that the language expert was acquainted not only with the works of the representatives of the logical direction but also with some investigations of FSP of V. Mathesius. The researcher himself used logic-grammatical and semantic approaches.

Language form of a sentence is not determined by its grammatical content alone. In fact, a sentence exists as a certain unity of its content, intonation and word order. A sentence includes the possibility of different comprehensions if the word order and logical stress are changed [5, p. 22]. The essence of logical stress consists in the emphasis of a particular word or phrase in a particular sentence. The part of the sentence emphasized by the stress begins to belong to another part of the sentence as a predicate. According to such point of view, any part of the sentence may become a predicate.

With the transfer of the logical stress one and the same formal- grammatical sentence is divided into parts in a different way, and they differ in the degree of importance, “novelty” of the utterance [5, p. 23].

We also think that it is very important to analyze the views of G. V. Kolshanskiy, who did not agree with the conception of M. Deutschbein. M. Deutschbein [23] tried to reconcile psychology with logic and grammar and distinguished in the sentence three layers - psychological, logical and grammatical. Grammatical subject and predicate exist on their own, psychological subject and predicate determine the content of representation, logical subject and predicate find support in self-awareness. This conception has not got sufficient support among other linguists, as particular grammatical analysis becomes artificial if based on such view.

G. V. Kolshanskiy called to refuse such narrow formal scheme of the sentence restricted only by the relationships between subject and predicate. Actual language form of the sentence should include word order and intonation as well, making the possibilities of expression of logical thought wider. In this case, the contradictions between sentence and utterance disappear [2, p. 13].

The linguist pointed out that subject and predicate of the sentence do not coincide with subject and predicate of the utterance. This allowed the researcher to make a conclusion about the existence of indissoluble connection between logical structure of the thought and its real expression in grammatical structure of the language [2, p. 15].

Later G. V. Kolshanskiy tried to solve the problem of correlation between parts of the utterance and grammatical structure of the sentence and stated the necessity of finding out actual relations between logical subject and grammatical subject and correspondingly between logical and grammatical predicates [9, p. 140].

The researcher also paid attention to the transition present in some languages. It is one of the grammatical means in the language system for formal linguistic denotation of predicative part of the utterance [9, p. 148].

A number of interesting but controversial observations concerning FSP may be found in the research papers of V. G. Admoni. The language expert believed that sentence division (partition), connected with communicative purpose in the utterance, is an expression of cognitive attitude of the speaker towards reality.

A significant role for specific realization of sentence content in the sphere of communication belongs to the following factors determined by the cognitive attitude of the speaker: firstly, particular succession in sentence deployment, secondly, the differentiation of parts of the sentence from the point of their importance for the speaker in the particular situation.

According to this aspect, V. G. Admoni studied different cases of deviations from a “normal” structure of logic-grammatical types of sentences in which the expression of cognitive attitude in succession and importance of certain components of the utterance does not coincide with succession and importance of the notions expressed by grammatical parts of the sentence. The researcher called the components of the utterance psychological (logical) subject and psychological (logical) predicate [1, p. 225].

The sentences analyzed allowed the linguist to make a conclusion that “normal” structure of the sentences is characteristic to isolated sentences which are in fact an abstraction. As a communicative unit the sentence becomes real in the sphere of communication which reflects certain speaker's attitude. In this case the notion “normal” does not have any scientific value.

On the other hand, “normal” structure of grammatical types of the sentence reflects particular cognitive attitude towards the content of the sentence, but this attitude is not individual or determined by some situation, though elaborated by human thinking on the basis of social practice, expressing general regularities of human consciousness as a reflection of objective reality and taking specific forms in the process of peculiar historical development of each language [1, p. 226].

Studying the problem of correlation and interconnection of the utterance and the sentence, Ye. M. Galkina-Fedoruk touched upon the subject of stability or instability of subject and predicate in the utterance and their correlation with parts of the sentence. She disagreed with the logicians' view of possibility of free transfer of the predicate, because in each particular case of logical stress transfer we get another utterance [7, p. 72].

Linguist A. Hetcher based her research on semantic approach. She believed that during semantic classification of the sentence one may rely on one of the three criteria: 1) reason of utterance, 2) theme, 3) point of view [24].

The researcher considered the first to be the most difficult because of the problem of self-expression vs. information. Even if only one reason were left (namely information), there would still be the problem of classification of the types of information.

The criterion of theme concerns the presence of subject in the sentence and it should be studied through the interstices of the network of the third system - point of view [24, p. 238].

In attempting to establish the point of view of predication A. Hatcher used underlying questions (this method is called question test now). Considering the criterion of the unknown and three main parts of the sentence (subject, predicate, object), the researcher differentiated seven possible questions: one question in which all three elements are unknown, three questions in which two elements are known and three questions in which only one of the elements is known [24, p. 244].

The studies of semantic (notional) division of K. G. Krushelnitskaya are very profound and prolific for the theory of FSP. She was one of the first Russian linguists who began investigating and describing this phenomenon. Her concept is based on semantic approach.

K. G. Krushelnitskaya turned her attention to the correlation of semantic and grammatical division [11, p. 58]. According to her analysis, the meaning of the given and the new grammatical meaning of the parts of the sentence overlap and become an important constituent of the latter in any particular act of communication. Any part of the sentence may become either the given or the new. But there is some interconnection between the grammatical meaning of the part of the sentence and its communicative capacity: subject usually acts in the sentence as the given, object, adverbial modifier of place, time and purpose almost equally act as the given and the new, while predicate and adverbial modifier of manner act as the new.

In K. G. Krushelnitskaya's opinion, communicative capacity of the parts of the sentence is obligatorily expressed by grammatical means. Intonation takes the first place in oral speech (in Russian and German), word order - in written one. There are also more specialized means of communicative capacity, such as intensifying words, particles (даже, и, именно, это), articles (in German) [11, p. 61].

A. I. Smirnitskiy studied subject and predicate inseparably from predication on the basis of logic-grammatical approach. Predication is the attribution of the known content of the statement to reality in distraction from this content. The content itself, connected with predication, in contrast to predication itself, may be termed as predicate. Predicate is the object of thought, connected with the subject, but the predicate itself is beyond the sentence. In the sentence it finds its expression in the grammatical predicate. Subject is the object of thought concerning which the predicate is imagined, determined and selected. In the sentence it finds its expression in the grammatical subject [15, p. 107].

Though grammatical subject and predicate, subject and predicate are interconnected, they are not identical and should be clearly differentiated. Grammatical subject and predicate are parts of the sentence represented by certain words, while subject and predicate are neither words nor parts of the sentence, but object of thought: it is expressed in the sentence but is beyond it [15, p. 108].

A. I. Smirnitskiy determined the difference between subject and predicate and agent and action to be in other field than the difference between subject and predicate and grammatical subject and predicate, though both fields often cross. Agent is not always identical with the subject and as a result is not always denoted by the subject.

So, in the researcher's opinion it is necessary to distinguish: 1. Subject and predicate (objects of thought, which correspond to grammatical subject and grammatical predicate). 2. Grammatical subject and grammatical predicate (words which denote subject and predicate). 3. Lexical subject and lexical predicate (the words which denote the object of the thought of the whole utterance and what is told about this object of thought). 4. Action and agent (the source of action in the denoted reality and the action itself) [15, p. 111].

But, as we can see, A. I. Smirnitskiy's terms cannot be used in any language or become universal because, for example in English, субъект and подлежащее have one translation - subject.

О. S. Melnychuk interpreted the principles of FSP somewhat particularly in his own way. He developed his own theory of syntagmatic division the principles of which do not differ from the theory of V. Mathesius. O. S. Melnychuk considered that each sentence is divided into syntagmas (intonational semantic units which are separated by potential pause), sometimes in several circles, situated according to their significance: the starting syntagma is situated before the main syntagma [12]. During inversion the main syntagma stands in front is put on the first position and is emphasized with the help of the accent. Inside syntagma we get the same situation: a more important element follows a less important element in case of the normal word order, but vice versa in case of inversion.

In B. V. Tomashevskiy's opinion, subject and predicate sometimes don't coincide with grammatical subject and predicate. This happens when grammatical subject itself becomes the new information while grammatical predicate is known [20, p. 270]. As a result, we get inversion.

D. Bolinger studied intonation and stress. Alongside of the term contrastive stress he suggested using the term contrastive accent, taking into account main pitch tone. For D. Bolinger a stressed word syllable is a syllable with an accent if it is present, i.e. it is a potential syllable for an accent. In English only long syllables may get an accent [22, p. 83].

Contrastive accent usually occurs without contrastive stress and helps to mark the necessary word [22, p. 88].

CONCLUSIONS

Summarizing, we can make the following conclusion: linguohistoriographic analysis does not often embrace all existing works and research papers making complex investigations really necessary. Studying not only well-known profound researches but also those concerning FSP only in some points, we were able to find out that the scientists of the corresponding period made a number of important remarks and their works included the same ideas (concerning fSp) but without corresponding terminology. Besides, their ideas influenced further periods of FSP investigation. Thus, the theory becomes more thorough and detailed showing the whole process of phenomenon development.

We see the perspectives of further investigations in studying and analyzing the materials of the corresponding period based on research papers of non-European linguists so that the theory would cease being spotty and one-sided.

References

1. Адмони В. Г. Введение в синтаксис современного немецкого языка. Москва: Изд-во лит. на ин. яз., 1955. 391 с.

2. Алексеев М. Н., Колшанский Г. В. О соотношении логических и грамматических категорий. Вопросы языкознания. 1955. № 5. С. 3-19.

3. Балли Ш. Общая лингвистика и вопросы французского языка: монография. Пер. с 3-го франц. изд. Москва: Изд-во иностр. лит., 1955. 416 с.

4. Булгакова Л. М. Место подлежащего относительно сказуемого в современном английском языке. Иностранные языки в школе. 1950. № 2. С. 2432.

5. Виноградов В. В. Некоторые задачи изучения синтаксиса простого предложения (На материале русского языка). Вопросы языкознания. 1954. № 1. С. 3-29.

6. Вінтонів М. Статус реми в структурі висловлення. Типологія та функції мовних одиниць. 2015. № (2) 4. С. 31-40.

7. Галкина-Федорук Е. М. Суждение и предложение. Материалы к курсам языкознания / под общ. ред. В. А. Звегинцева. Москва: МГУ, 1956. 73 с.

8. Коломієць В. Т. Порядок слів у чеській прозі першої половини XIX ст. Вопросы славянского языкознания. Львов; Харьков, 1953. Кн. 3. С. 117-127.

9. Колшанский Г. В Логика и структура языка. Москва: Высшая школа, 1966. 240 с.

10. Кореневский Е. И. Уроки синтаксиса в VI классе (Из опыта работы в московской школе № 32 им. Лепешинского). Русский язык в школе. 1940. № 5. С. 33-40.

11. Крушельницкая К. Г. К вопросу о смысловом членении предложения. Вопросы языкознания. 1956. № 5. С. 55-67.

12. Мельничук A. C. Порядок слов и синтагматическое членение предложений в славянских языках. Киев, 1958. 64 с.

13. Попов П. С. Суждение и предложение. Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка. Москва: Учпедгиз, 1950. С. 5-35.

14. Сатарова А. Ф. Характеристика места членов предложения в составе темы и ремы. Вестник Башкирского университета. 2014. Т. 19. № 2. С. 587590.

15. Смирницкий А. И. Синтаксис английского языка. Москва: Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках, 1957. 286 с.

16. Стрига Е. В. Лексичні засоби виділення теми і реми в англійській та українській мовах. Записки з романо-германської філології. Вип 2 (33). 2014. С. 114-118.

17. Строева Т. В. О прямом и обратном порядке слов в современном немецком языке. Памяти академика Льва Владимировича Щербы (1880-1941): сборник статей. Ленинград: Изд. Ленинград. гос. ун-та им. А. А. Жданова, 1951. С. 255-261.

18. Таванец П. В. Суждение и его виды. Москва: Изд-во АН СССР, 1953. 176 с.

19. Теньер Л. Основы структурного синтаксиса. пер. с франц. Г. В. Степанова. Москва: Прогресс, 1988. 656 с.

20. Томашевский Б. В. Стилистика и стихосложение. Курс лекций. Ленинград: Учпедгиз, Ленинград. отд-ние, 1959. 535 с.

21. Хворостяна М. І. Актуальне членування речення та порядок слів в англійській мові. Освіта, наука та виробництво: розвиток і перспективи: матеріали І Всеукраїнської науково-методичної конференції, присвяченої 15-й річниці заснування Шосткинського університтету (Шостка, 21 квітня 2016 р.). Суми: Сумський державний університет, 2016. С. 102-103.

22. Bolinger D. L. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language. 1961. Vol. 37. № 1. P. 83-96.

23. Deutschbein M. Neuenglische Stilistik. Leipzig: Quelle&Meyer, 1931.250 S.

24. Hatcher A. G. Syntax and Sentence. Word. 1956. Vol. 12. № 2. P. 234250.

Размещено на Allbest.ru