Лекции по теоретической грамматике английского языка. Тивьяева И.В. - 82 стр.

UptoLike

Составители:

Рубрика:

2. The sentence, just like any other meaningful language unit, has a form. Every

sentence has an intonation pattern.

3. The sentence occupies the highest hierarchical position relative to other

structural language units since the final purpose of all structural language

units is to build sentences. Unlike the sentence, the text does not have accurate

and unambiguous structural characteristics. There are no universal structural

schemes of the text. None of semantico-structural means used to join

sentences is specific to the text. Therefore, the text cannot be considered a

structural language unit.

2. Classifications of simple sentences

Sentences can be classified according to their structural, semantic and

pragmatic properties. In this lecture we will deal with structural classifications.

One traditional scheme for classifying English

sentences is by the number

and types of finite

clauses: sentences are divided into simple and composite, the

latter consisting of two more clauses. Composite sentences will be the subject of

the next lecture, and here we will focus on classifications of simple sentences.

Simple sentences are usually classified into one-member and two-member.

This distinction is based on a difference in the main parts of a sentence. One-

member sentences do not contain two such separate parts; in these sentences there

is only one main part (e.g. Silence! Come here!) Such sentences contain neither the

subject nor the predicate. Instead there is only one main part. It is a disputed point

whether the main part of such a sentence should, or should not, be termed subject

in some cases, and predicate, in others. As it was pointed out by academician V.

Vinogradov, grammatical subject and grammatical predicate are correlative notions

and the terms are meaningless outside their relation to each other. He suggested

that for one-member sentences, the term "main part" should be used, without

giving it any more specific name.

Prof. Blokh

, however, does not accept this approach because, in his view, it

is based on an inadequate presupposition that in the system of language there is a