Theoretical English grammar

The functional meanings expressed by the and-semi-compound patterns can be exposed by means of both coordinative and subordinative correlations. Here are some basic ones:

The officer parked the car at the end of the terrace and went into the Mission. > The officer parked the car ..., then went into the Mission. (Succession of events, inviting a coordinative exposition) Suddenly the door burst open and Tommy rushed in panting for breath.> As the door burst open, Tommy rushed in ...("Successive simultaneity" of actions, inviting a subordinative exposition) Patterton gavelled for attention and speedily disposed of several routine matters. > Patterton gavelled for attention so that he could dispose and did dispose of several routine matters. (Purpose in successive actions, inviting a subordinative exposition) Her anger and emotion grew, and finally exploded. > Her anger and emotion grew to the degree that they finally exploded. (Successive actions in gradation, inviting a subordinative exposition) He just miscalculated and won't admit it. --» Though he miscalculated, he won't admit it. (Concession in opposition, inviting a subordinative exposition) Mary promised to come and he was determined to wait. > He was determined to wait because Mary had promised to come. (Cause and consequence, inviting a subordinative exposition)

Among the various connective meanings expressed by the conjunction and in combination with the corresponding lexemic constituents of the sentence there are two standing very prominent, due to the regular correlations existing between such constructions and semi-complex patterns with verbid phrases -- infinitival and participial.

The first construction expresses a subsequent action of incidental or unexpected character:

He leaped up in time to see the Colonel rushing out of the door (H. E. Bates). > He leaped up in time and saw the Colonel rushing out of the door. Walker woke in his bed at the bourbon house to hear a strange hum and buzz in the air (M. Bradbury). > Walker woke in his bed at the bourbon house and heard a strange hum and buzz in the air.

In these constructions the leading clause, as a rule, includes verbs of positional or psychological change, while the expansion, correspondingly, features verbs of perceptions. As is seen from the examples, it is the semi-compound pattern that diagnoses the meaning of the pattern with the infinitive, not the reverse. The infinitive pattern for its part makes up an expressive stylistic device by virtue of its outward coincidence with an infinitive pattern of purpose: the unexpectedness of the referent action goes together with the contextual unexpectedness of the construction.

The participial construction expresses a parallel attendant event that serves as a characteristic to the event rendered by the leading clause:

He sat staring down the gardens, trying to remember whether this was the seventh or eighth day since the attack had begun (H. E. Bates). > He was sitting and staring down the gardens, and was trying to remember... Rage flamed up in him, contorting his own face (M. Puzo). >Rage flamed up in him and contorted his own face.

With the participial pattern, the same as with the infinitival one, the diagnostic construction is the semi-compound sentence, not vice versa.

The nature of the shown correlations might be interpreted as a reason for considering the relations between the head-verb and the verbid in the tested patterns as coordinative, not subordinative. However, on closer analysis we must admit that diagnosis of this kind is called upon to expose the hidden meanings, but not to level up the differences between units of opposed categorial standings. The verbid patterns remain part of the system of semi-complex sentences because of the hierarchical ranking of their notional positions, while the correlation with semi-compound sentences simply explain their respective semantic properties.

§ 4. The asyndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence stands by its functional features close to the syndetic and-formation in so far as it does not give a rigorous characterisation (semantic mark) to the introduced expansion. At the same time its functional range is incomparably narrower than that of the and-formation.

The central connective meaning distinguishing the asyndetic connection of predicative parts in semi-compound sentences is enumeration of events, either parallel or consecutive. In accord with the enumerative function, asyndetic semi-compounding more often than not is applied to a larger set of base sentences than the minimal two. E.g.:

He closed the door behind him with a shaking hand, found the old car in its parking place, drove along with the drifting lights. They talked, laughed, were perfectly happy late into the night.

Asyndetic semi-compound sentences are often used to express gradation of intensity going together with a general emphasis. E.g.:

He would in truth give up the shop, follow her to Paris, follow her also to the chateau in the country (D. du Maurier). He never took the schoolbag again, had refused to touch it (J. Updike).

Characteristic of enumerative and gradational semi-compound sentences is the construction where the first two parts are joined asyndetically, and the third part syndetically, by means of the conjunction and. In such three-base constructions the syndetic expansion finalises the sentence both structurally and semantically, making it into an intensely complete utterance. E.g.:

He knows his influence, struts about and considers himself a great duellist. They can do it, have the will to do it, and are actually doing it.

Of the meanings other than enumerative rendered by the construction in question, the most prominent is elucidation combined with various connotations, such as consequence, purpose, additional characteristics of the basic event. Cf.:

The sight of him made me feel young again: took me back to the beaches, the Ardennes, the Reichswald, and the Rhine. I put an arm round her, tried to tease her into resting.

The number of predicative parts in a semi-compound sentence is balanced against the context in which it is used, and, naturally, is an essential feature of its structure. This number may be as great as seven, eight, or even more.

The connection-types of multi-base semi-compound sentences are syndetic, asyndetic, and mixed.

The syndetic semi-compound sentences may be homo-syndetic (i.e. formed by so many entries of one and the same conjunctive) and heterosyndetic (i.e. formed by different conjunctives). The most important type of homosyndetic semi-compounding is the and-type. Its functional meaning is enumeration combined with copulation. E.g.:

A harmless young man going nowhere in particular was knocked down and trodden on and rose to fight back and was punched in the head by a policeman in mistake for someone else and hit the policeman back and ended in more trouble than if he had been on the party himself (M. Dickens).

A series of successive events is intensely rendered by a homosyndetic construction formed with the help of the conjunctive then. E.g.: You saw the flash, then heard the crack, then saw the smoke ball distort and thin in the wind (E. Hemingway).

Another conjunctive pattern used in homosyndetic semi-compounding is the or-type in its different variants. E.g.:

After dinner we sat in the yard of the inn on hard chairs, or paced about the platform or stumbled between the steel sleepers of the permanent way (E. Waugh). Babies never cried or got the wind or were sick when Nurse Morrison fed them (M. Dickens).

By heterosyndetic semi-compounding the parts of the sentence are divided into groups according to the meanings of the conjunctives. Cf.:

A native woman in a sarong came and looked at them, but vanished when the doctor addressed her (S. Maugham). Ugly sat in the bow and barked arrogantly at passing boats, or stood rockily peering in the river (M. Dickens).

The asyndetic connections in semi-compound sentences, within their range of functions, are very expressive, especially when making up long enumerations-gradations. E.g.:

He had enjoyed a sharp little practice in Split, had meddled before the war in anti-Serbian politics, had found himself in an Italian prison, had been let out when the partisans briefly "liberated" the coast, had been swept up with them in the retreat (E. Waugh).

In the mixed syndetic-asyndetic semi-compound sentence various groupings of coordinated parts are effected. E.g.: He spun completely round, then fell forward on his knees, rose again and limped slowly on (E. Waugh).

In cases where multi-base semi-compound sentences are formed around one and the same subject-predicate combination, they are very often primitivised into a one-predicate sentence with coordinated secondary parts. Of these sentences, a very characteristic type is presented by a construction with a string of adverbial groups. This type of sentence expresses an action (usually, though not necessarily, a movement) or a series of actions continued through a sequence of consecutive place- and time situations. E.g.: Then she took my hand, and we went down the steps of the tower together, and through the court and to the walls of the rock-place (D. du Maurier).

The construction is very dynamic, its adverbial constituents preserve clear traces of the corresponding predications, and therefore it approaches the genuine semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination by its semantic nature.

The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination immediately correlates with a compound sentence of complete composition having identical subjects. Both constructions are built upon the same set of base sentences, use the same connective means and reflect the same situation, E.g.:

She looked at him and saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes. > She looked at him and she saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes (The latter sentence -- from D. du Maurier). The officer received the messengers, took their letters, and though I stood with them, completely ignored me. --» The officer received the messengers, took their letters, and though I stood with them, he completely ignored me (The latter sentence -- from H. E. Stover).

A question arises whether the compared sentences are absolutely the same in terms of functions and semantics, or whether there is some kind of difference between them which causes them to be used discriminately.

In an attempt to expose the existing functional difference between the two constructions, it has been pointed out that base sentences with identical subjects are connected not in a semi-compound, but into a compound sentence (of complete composition) in the three main cases: first, when the leading sentence is comparatively long; second, when the finite verbs in the two sentences are of different structure; third, when the second sentence is highly emotional.* These tentative formulations should rather be looked upon as practical guides, for they do correspond to the existing tendencies of living speech. But the tendencies lack absolute regularity and, which is far more significant, they do not present complete lingual facts by themselves, but rather are particular manifestations of a general and fundamental mechanism at work. This mechanism is embodied in the actual division of the sentence: as a matter of fact, observations of the relevant contexts show that the structure of the actual division in the two types of sentences is essentially different. Namely, whereas the actual division of the compound sentence with identical subjects presents two (or more) separate informative perspectives characterised by identical themes and different rhemes, the actual division of the semi-compound sentence presents only one perspective, analysed into one theme and one, though complex, rheme; the latter falls into two or more constituent rhemes (sub-rhemes) in various concrete contexts.

The sub-rhemes may be of equal importance from the informational point of view, as in the following example: We were met by a guide who spoke excellent English and had a head full of facts.

The sub-rhemes may be of unequal informative importance, the predicative expansion rendering the basic semantic content of the sentence. E.g.: She gave us her address and asked us to come and see her.

The coordinated predicate groups may also be informatively fused into an essentially simple rheme, i.e. into a phrase making up a close informative unity. E.g.: He took out his diary and began to write. The man looked up and laughed.

As different from the semi-compound construction with its exposed informative properties, the very identity of the subject themes in a compound sentence of complete composition is a factor making it into a communicatively intense, logically accented syntactic unit (compare the examples given at the beginning of the paragraph).

CHAPTER XXXI. SENTENCE IN THE TEXT

We have repeatedly shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically and syntactically.

Inter-sentential connections have come under linguistic investigation but recently. The highest lingual unit which was approached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic study was the sentence; scholars even specially stressed that to surpass the boundaries of the sentence was equal to surpassing the boundaries of grammar.

In particular, such an outstanding linguist as L. Bloomfield, while recognising the general semantic connections between sentences in the composition of texts as linguistically relevant, at the same time pointed out that the sentence is the largest grammatically arranged linguistic form, i.e. it is not included into any other linguistic form by a grammatical arrangement.*

However, further studies in this field have demonstrated the inadequacy of the cited thesis. It has been shown that sentences in speech do come under broad grammatical arrangements, do combine with one another on strictly syntactic lines in the formation of larger stretches of both oral talk and written text.

It should be quite clear that, supporting the principle of syntactic approach to arrangement of sentences into a continual text, we do not assert that any sequence of independent sentences forms a syntactic unity. Generally speaking, sentences in a stretch of uninterrupted talk may or may not build up a coherent sequence, wholly depending on the purpose of the speaker. E.g.:

Barbara. Dolly: don't be insincere. Cholly: fetch your concertina and play something for us (B. Shaw).

The cited sequence of two sentences does not form a unity in either syntactic or semantic sense, the sentences being addressed to different persons on different reasons. A disconnected sequence may also have one and the same communication addressee, as in the following case:

Duchess of Berwic... I like him so much. I am quite delighted he's gone! How sweet you're looking! Where do you get your gowns? And now I must tell you how sorry I am for you, dear Margaret (O. Wilde).

But disconnected sequences like these are rather an exception than the rule. Moreover, they do not contradict in the least the idea of a continual topical text as being formed of grammatically interconnected sentences. Indeed, successive sentences in a disconnected sequence mark the corresponding transitions of thought, so each of them can potentially be expanded into a connected sequence bearing on one unifying topic. Characteristically, an utterance of a personage in a work of fiction marking a transition of thought (and breaking the syntactic connection of sentences in the sequence) is usually introduced by a special author's comment. E.g.:

"You know, L.S., you're rather a good sport." Then his tone grew threatening again. "It's a big risk I'm taking. It's the biggest risk I've ever had to take" (C. P. Snow).

As we see, the general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text includes two different notions. On the one hand, it presupposes a succession of spoken or written utterances irrespective of their forming or not forming a coherent semantic complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictly topical stretch of talk, i.e. a continual succession of sentences centering on a common informative purpose. It is this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It is in this latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingual element with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic (topical) unity, second, semantico-syntactic cohesion.

The primary division of sentence sequences in speech should be based on the communicative direction of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue sequences and dialogue sequences are to be discriminated.

In a monologue, sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to his one or several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be characterised as a one-direction sequence. E.g.:

We'll have a lovely garden. We'll have roses in it and daffodils and a lovely lawn with a swing for little Billy and little Barbara to play on. And we'll have our meals down by the lily pond in summer (K. Waterhouse and H. Hall).

The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian linguists N. S. Pospelov and L. A. Bulakhovsky. The former called the unit in question a "complex syntactic unity", the latter, a "super-phrasal unity". From consistency considerations, the corresponding English term used in this book is the "supra-sentential construction" (see Ch. I).

As different from this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the speakers-interlocutors in turn, so that they are directed, as it were, to meet one another; the sequence of this type, then, should be characterised as a two-direction sequence. E.g.: "Annette, what have you done?" -- "I've done what I had to do" (S. Maugham).

It must be noted that two-direction sequences can in principle be used within the framework of a monologue text, by way of an "inner dialogue" (i.e. a dialogue of the speaker with himself). E.g.: What were they jabbering about now in Parliament? Some two-penny-ha'penny tax! (J. Galsworthy).

On the other hand, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, when a response utterance forms not a rejoinder, but a continuation of the stimulating utterance addressed to the same third party, or to both speakers themselves as a collective self-addressee, or having an indefinite addressee. E.g.:

St. Erth. All the money goes to fellows who don't know a horse from a haystack. --Canynge (profoundly). And care less. Yes! We want men racing to whom a horse means something (J. Galsworthy). Elуоt. I'm glad we didn't go out tonight. Amanda. Or last night. El-yоt. Or the night before. Amanda. There's no reason to, really, when we're cosy here (N. Coward).

Thus, the direction of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the sentence-sequence than its outer, purely formal presentation as either a monologue (one man's speech) or a dialogue (a conversation between two parties). In order to underline these deep distinguishing features of the two types of sequences, we propose to name them by the types of sentence-connection used. The formation of a one-direction sequence is based on syntactic cumulation of sentences, as different from syntactic composition of sentences making them into one composite sentence. Hence, the supra-sentential construction of one-direction communicative type can be called a cumulative sequence, or a "cumuleme". The formation of a two-direction sequence is based on its sentences being positioned to meet one another. Hence, we propose to call this type of sentence-connection by the term "occursive", and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive connection, by the term "occurseme".

Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that from the hierarchical point of view the occurseme as an element of the system occupies a place above the cumuleme. Indeed, if the cumuleme is constructed by two or more sentences joined by cumulation, the occurseme can be constructed by two or more cumulemes, since the utterances of the interlocutors can be formed not only by separate sentences, but by cumulative sequences as well. E.g.:

"Damn you, stop talking about my wife. If you mention her name again I swear I'll knock you down." -- "Oh no, you won't. You're too great a gentleman to hit a feller smaller than yourself" (S. Maugham).

As we see, in formal terms of the segmental lingual hierarchy, the supra-proposemic level (identified in the first chapter of the book) can be divided into two sublevels: the lower one -- "cumulemic", and the higher one -- "occursemic". On the other hand, a fundamental difference between the two units in question should be carefully noted lying beyond the hierarchy relation, since the occurseme, as different from the cumuleme, forms part of a conversation, i.e. is essentially produced not by one, but by two or several speakers, or, linguistically, not by one, but by two or several individual sub-lingual systems working in an intercourse contact.

As for the functional characteristic of the two higher segmental units of language, it is representative of the function of the text as a whole. The signemic essence of the text is exposed in its topic. The monologue text, or "discourse", is then a topical entity; the dialogue text, or "conversation", is an exchange-topical entity. The cumuleme and occurseme are component units of these two types of texts, which means that they form, respectively, subtopical and exchange-sub-topical units as regards the embedding text as a whole. Within the framework of the system of language, however, since the text as such does not form any "unit" of it, the cumuleme and occurseme can simply be referred to as topical elements (correspondingly, topical and exchange-topical), without the "sub "-specification.

Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or "retrospectively".

Prospective ("epiphoric", "cataphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to one that is to follow it. In other words, a prospective connector signals a continuation of speech: the sentence containing it is semantically incomplete. Very often prospective connectors are notional words that perform the cumulative function for the nonce. E.g.:

I tell you, one of two things must happen. Either out of that darkness some new creation will come to supplant us as we have supplanted the animals, or the heavens will fall in thunder and destroy us (B. Shaw).

The prospective connection is especially characteristic of the texts of scientific and technical works. E.g.:

Let me add a word of caution here. The solvent vapour drain enclosure must be correctly engineered and constructed to avoid the possibility of a serious explosion (From a technical journal).

As different from prospective cumulation, retrospective (or "anaphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to the one that precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective cumulation is the more important type of sentence connection of the two; it is the basic type of cumulation in ordinary speech. E.g.:

What curious "class" sensation was this? Or was it merely fellow-feeling with the hunted, a tremor at the way things found one out? (J. Galsworthy).

On the basis of the functional nature of connectors, cumulation is divided into two fundamental types: conjunctive cumulation and correlative cumulation.

Conjunctive cumulation is effected by conjunction-like connectors. To these belong, first, regular conjunctions, both coordinative and subordinative; second, adverbial and parenthetical sentence-connectors (then, yet, however, consequently, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless, etc.). Adverbial and parenthetical sentence-connectors may be both specialised, i.e. functional and semi-functional words, and non-specialised units performing the connective functions for the nonce. E.g.:

There was an indescribable agony in his voice. And as if his own words of pain overcame the last barrier of his self-control, he broke down (S. Maugham). There was no train till nearly eleven, and she had to bear her impatience as best she could. At last it was time to start, and she put on her gloves (S. Maugham).

Correlative cumulation is effected by a pair of elements one of which, the "succeedent", refers to the other, the "antecedent", used in the foregoing sentence; by means of this reference the succeeding sentence is related to the preceding one, or else the preceding sentence is related to the succeeding one. As we see, by its direction correlative cumulation may be either retrospective or prospective, as different from conjunctive cumulation which is only retrospective.

Correlative cumulation, in its turn, is divided into substitutional connection and representative connection. Substitutional cumulation is based on the use of substitutes. E.g.:

Spolding woke me with the apparently noiseless efficiency of the trained housemaid. She drew the curtains, placed a can of hot water in my basin, covered it with the towel, and retired (E. J. Howard).

A substitute may have as its antecedent the whole of the preceding sentence or a clausal part of it. Furthermore, substitutes often go together with conjunctions, effecting cumulation of mixed type. E.g.:

And as I leaned over the rail methought that all the little stars in the water were shaking with austere merriment. But it may have been only the ripple of the steamer, after all (R. Kipling).

Representative correlation is based on representative elements which refer to one another without the factor of replacement. E.g.:

She should be here soon. I must tell Phipps, I am not in to any one else (O. Wilde). I went home. Maria accepted my departure indifferently (E. J. Howard).

Representative correlation is achieved also by repetition, which may be complicated by different variations. E.g.:

Well, the night was beautiful, and the great thing not to be a pig. Beauty and not being a pig\ Nothing much else to it (J. Galsworthy).

A cumuleme (cumulative supra-sentential construction) is formed by two or more independent sentences making up a topical syntactic unity. The first of the sentences in a cumuleme is its "leading" sentence, the succeeding sentences are "sequential".

The cumuleme is delimited in the text by a finalising intonation contour (cumuleme-contour) with a prolonged pause (cumuleme-pause); the relative duration of this pause equals two and a half moras ("mora" -- the conventional duration of a short syllable), as different from the sentence-pause equalling only two moras.

The cumuleme, like a sentence, is a universal unit of language in so far as it is used in all the functional varieties of speech. For instance, the following cumuleme is part of the author's speech of a work of fiction:

The boy winced at this. It made him feel hot and uncomfortable all over. He knew well how careful he ought to be, and yet, do what he could, from time to time his forgetfulness of the part betrayed him into unreserve (S. Butler).

Compare a cumuleme in a typical newspaper article:

We have come a long way since then, of course. Unemployment insurance is an accepted fact. Only the most die-hard reactionaries, of the Goldwater type, dare to come out against it (from Canadian Press).

Here is a sample cumuleme of scientific-technical report prose:

To some engineers who apply to themselves the word "practical" as denoting the possession of a major virtue, applied research is classed with pure research as something highbrow they can do without. To some business men, applied research is something to have somewhere in the organisation to demonstrate modernity and enlightenment. And people engaged in applied research are usually so satisfied in the belief that what they are doing is of interest and value that they are not particularly concerned about the niceties of definition (from a technical journal).

Poetical text is formed by cumulemes, too:

She is not fair to outward view, | As many maidens be; | Her loveliness I never knew | Until she smiled on me. |Oh, then I saw her eye was bright, | A well of love, a spring of light (H. Coleridge).

But the most important factor showing the inalienable and universal status of the cumuleme in language is the indispensable use of cumulemes in colloquial speech (which is reflected in plays, as well as in conversational passages in works of various types of fiction).

The basic semantic types of cumulemes are "factual" (narrative and descriptive), "modal" (reasoning, perceptive, etc.), and mixed. Here is an example of a narrative cumuleme:

Three years later, when Jane was an Army driver, she was sent one night to pick up a party of officers who had been testing defences on the cliff. She found the place where the road ran between a cleft almost to the beach, switched off her engine and waited, hunched in her great-coat, half asleep, in the cold black silence. She waited for an hour and woke in a fright to a furious voice coming out of the night (M. Dickens).

Compare this with modal cumulemes of various topical standings:

She has not gone? I thought she gave a second performance at two? (S. Maugham) (A reasoning cumuleme of perceptional variety)

Are you kidding? Don't underrate your influence, Mr. O'Keefe. Dodo's in. Besides, I've lined up Sandra Straughan to work with her (A. Hailey). (A remonstrative cumuleme)

Don't worry. There will be a certain amount of unpleasantness but I will have some photographs taken that will be very useful at the inquest. There's the testimony of the gunbearers and the driver too. You're perfectly all right (E. Hemingway). (A reasoning cumuleme expressing reassurance) Etc.

Cumuleme in writing is regularly expressed by a paragraph, but the two units are not wholly identical.

In the first place, the paragraph is a stretch of written or typed literary text delimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close. As different from this, the cumuleme, as we have just seen, is essentially a feature of all the varieties of speech, both oral and written, both literary and colloquial.

In the second place, the paragraph is a polyfunctional unit of written speech and as such is used not only for the written representation of a cumuleme, but also for the introduction of utterances of a dialogue (dividing an occurseme into parts), as well as for the introduction of separate points in various enumerations.

In the third place, the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain more than one cumuleme. For instance, the following paragraph is divided into three parts, the first formed by a separate sentence, the second and third ones presenting cumulemes. For the sake of clarity, we mark the borders between the parts by double slash:

When he had left the house Victorina stood quite still, with hands pressed against her chest. // She had slept less than he. Still as a mouse, she had turned the thought: "Did I take him in? Did I?" And if not -- what? // She took out the notes which had bought -- or sold -- their happiness, and counted them once more. And the sense of injustice burned within her (J. Galsworthy).

The shown division is sustained by the succession of the forms of the verbs, namely, the past indefinite and past perfect, precisely marking out the events described.

In the fourth place, the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain only one sentence. The regular function of the one-sentence paragraph is expressive emphasis. E.g.:

The fascists may spread over the land, blasting their way with weight of metal brought from other countries. They may advance aided by traitors and by cowards. They may destroy cities and villages and try to hold the people in slavery. But you cannot hold any people in slavery.

The Spanish people will rise again as they have always risen before against tyranny (E. Hemingway).

In the cited passage the sentence-paragraph marks a transition from the general to the particular, and by its very isolation in the text expressively stresses the author's belief in the invincible will of the Spanish people who are certain to smash their fascist oppressors in the long run.

On the other hand, the cumuleme cannot be prolonged beyond the limits of the paragraph, since the paragraphal border-marks are the same as those of the cumuleme, i.e. a characteristic finalising tone, a pause of two and a half moras. Besides, we must bear in mind that both multicumuleme paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs are more or less occasional features of the monologue text. Thus, we return to our initial thesis that the paragraph, although it is a literary-compositional, not a purely syntactic unit of the text, still as a rule presents a cumuleme; the two units, if not identical, are closely correlative.

The introduction of the notion of cumuleme in linguistics helps specify and explain the two peculiar and rather important border-line phenomena between the sentence and the sentential sequence.

The first of these is known under the heading of "parcellation". The parcellated construction ("parcellatum") presents two or more collocations ("parcellas") separated by a sentence-tone but related to one another as parts of one and the same sentence. In writing the parts, i.e., respectively, the "leading parcella" and "sequential parcella", are delimited by a full stop (finality mark). E.g.:

There was a sort of community pride attached to it now. Or shame at its unavoidability (E.Stephens). Why be so insistent, Jim? If he doesn't want to tell you (J. O'Hara). ...I realised I didn't feel one way or another about him. Then. I do now (J. O'Hara).

Having recourse to the idea of transposition, we see that the parcellated construction is produced as a result of transposing a sentence into a cumuleme. This kind of transposition adds topical significance to the sequential parcella. The emphasising function of parcellation is well exposed by the transformation of de-transposition. This transformation clearly deprives the sequential parcella of its position of topical significance, changing it into an ordinary sentence-part. Cf.:

... > There was a sort of community pride attached to it now or shame at its unavoidability. ...> Why be so insistent, Jim, if he doesn't want to tell you? ... > I didn't feel one way or another about him then.

With some authors parcellation as the transposition of a sentence into a cumuleme can take the form of forced paragraph division, i.e. the change of a sentence into a supra-cumuleme. E.g.:

... It was she who seemed adolescent and overly concerned, while he sat there smiling fondly at her, quite self-possessed, even self-assured, and adult.

And naked. His nakedness became more intrusive by the second, until she half arose and said with urgency, "You have to go and right now, young man" (E. Stephens).

The second of the border-line phenomena in question is the opposite of parcellation, it consists in forcing two different sentences into one, i.e. in transposing a cumuleme into a sentence. The cumuleme-sentence construction is characteristic of uncareful and familiar speech; in a literary text it is used for the sake of giving a vivid verbal characteristic to a personage. E.g.:

I'm not going to disturb her and that's flat, miss (A. Christie). The air-hostess came down the aisle then to warn passengers they were about to land and please would everyone fasten their safety belts (B. Hedworth).

The transposition of a cumuleme into a sentence occurs also in literary passages dealing with reasoning and mental perceptions. E.g.:

If there were moments when Soames felt cordial, they were such as these. He had nothing against the young man; indeed, he rather liked the look of him; but to see the last of almost anybody was in a sense a relief; besides, there was this question of what he had overheard, and to have him about the place without knowing would be a continual temptation to compromise with one's dignity and ask him what it was (J. Galsworthy).

As is seen from the example, one of the means of transposing a cumuleme into a sentence in literary speech is the use of half-finality punctuation marks (here, a semicolon).

Neither cumulemes, nor paragraphs form the upper limit of textual units of speech. Paragraphs are connected within the framework of larger elements of texts making up different paragraph groupings. Thus, above the process of cumulation as syntactic connection of separate sentences, supra-cumulation should be discriminated as connection of cumulemes and paragraphs into larger textual unities of the correspondingly higher subtopical status. Cf.:

... That first slip with my surname was just like him; and afterwards, particularly when he was annoyed, apprehensive, or guilty because of me, he frequently called me Ellis.

So, in the smell of Getliffe's tobacco, I listened to him as he produced case after case, sometimes incomprehensibly, because of his allusive slang, often inaccurately. He loved the law (C. P. Snow).

In the given example, the sentence beginning the second paragraph is cumulated (i.e. supra-cumulated) to the previous paragraph, thus making the two of them into a paragraph grouping.

Moreover, even larger stretches of text than primary paragraph groupings can be supra-cumulated to one another in the syntactic sense, such as chapters and other compositional divisions. For instance, compare the end of Chapter XXIII and the beginning of Chapter XXIV of J. Galsworthy's "Over the River":

Chapter XXIII. ... She went back to Condaford with her father by the morning train, repeating to her Aunt the formula: "I'm not going to be ill."

Chapter XXIV. But she was ill, and for a month in her conventional room at Condaford often wished she were dead and done with. She might, indeed, quite easily have died...

Can, however, these phenomena signify that the sentence is simply a sub-unit in language system, and that "real" informative-syntactic elements of this system are not sentences, but various types of cumulemes or supra-cumulemes? -- In no wise.

Supra-sentential connections cannot be demonstrative of the would-be "secondary", "sub-level" role of the sentence as an element of syntax by the mere fact that all the cumulative and occursive relations in speech, as we have seen from the above analysis, are effected by no other unit than the sentence, and by no other structure than the inner structure of the sentence; the sentence remains the central structural-syntactic element in all the formations of topical significance. Thus, even in the course of a detailed study of various types of supra-sentential constructions, the linguist comes to the confirmation of the classical truth that the two basic units of language are the word and the sentence: the word as a unit of nomination, the sentence as a unit of predication. And it is through combining different sentence-predications that topical reflections of reality are achieved in all the numerous forms of lingual intercourse.

A LIST OF SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ахманова О. С., Микаэлян Г. Б. Современные синтаксические теории. М., 1963.

Бархударов Л. С. (1) Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966; (2) Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. М., 1975.

Бархударов Л. С. Штелинг Д. А. Грамматика английского языка. М., 1973.

Блох М. Я. Вопросы изучения грамматического строя языка. М., 1976.

Блумфилд Л. Язык. М., 1968.

Бурлакова В. В. Основы структуры словосочетания в современном английском языке. Л., 1975.

Воронцова Г. Я. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960.

Гальперин И. Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М., 1981.

Долгова О. В. (1) Семиотика неплавной речи. М., 1978; (2) Синтаксис как наука о построении речи. М., 1980.

Есперсен О. Философия грамматики. М., 1958.

Жигадло В. Я., Иванова И. Я., Иофик Л. Л. Современный английский язык. М., 1956.

Иванова И. Я. Вид и время в современном английском языке. Л., 1961.

Иванова И. Я., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М., 1981.

Иртеньева Я. Ф. Грамматика современного английского языка (теоретический курс). М., 1956.

Корнеева Е. А., Кобрина Я. А., Гузеева К. А., Оссовская М. И. Пособие по морфологии современного английского языка. М. 1974.

Кошевая И. Г. Грамматический строй современного английского языка. М., 1978.

Лайонз Дж. Введение в теоретическую лингвистику. М., 1978.

Мухин A.M. (1) Структура предложений и их модели. Л., 1968; (2) Синтаксемный анализ и проблема уровней языка. Л., 1980.

Плоткин В. Я. Грамматические системы современного английского языка. Кишинев, 1975.

Почепцов Г. Г. (1) Конструктивный анализ структуры предложения. Киев, 1971; (2) Синтагматика английского слова. Киев, 1976.

Слюсарева Я. А. Проблемы функционального синтаксиса современного английского языка. М., 1981.

Смирницкий А. И. (1) Синтаксис английского языка. М., 1957; (2) Морфология английского языка. М., 1959.

Структурный синтаксис английского языка (теоретический курс). /Под ред. Иофик Л.Л. Л., 1981.

Тер-Минасова С. Г. Словосочетание в научно-лингвистическом и дидактическом аспектах. М., 1981.

Чейф У. Л. Значение и структура языка. М., 1975.

Уфимцева А. А. Слово в лексико-семантической системе языка. М., 1968.

Хлебникова И. Б. Оппозиции в морфологии. М., 1969.

Ярцева В. Н. (1) Историческая морфология английского языка. М.-Л., I960; (2) Исторический синтаксис английского языка. М.-Л., 1961.

Akhmanova О. et. al. Syntax: Theory and Method. Moscow, 1972.

Bryant M. A. Functional English Grammar. N.Y., 1945.

Close R. A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Ldn., 1977.

Curme G.O. A Grammar of the English Language. Boston -- N.Y., 1935.

Fries Ch.C. The Structure of English. N.Y., 1952.

Ganshina M. A. Vasilevskaya N. M. English Grammar. Moscow, 1964.

Hill A. A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. N.Y. -- Burlingame, 1958.

Hockett Ch. A Course in Modern Linguistics. N.Y., 1958.

Iofik L. L., Chakhoyan L. P. Readings in the Theory of English Grammar. Leningrad, 1972.

Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English. M.-L., 1971.

Irtenyeva N. F., Barsova O. M., Blokh M. Y., Shapkin A. P. A Theoretical English Grammar. Moscow, 1969.

Khaimovich B. S., Rogovskaya B. I. A Course in English Grammar. Moscow, 1967.

Nida E. Morphology. Ann Arbor, 1965.

Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Ldn., 1972.

Strang B. Modern English Structure. Ldn., 1974.

Sweet H. A New English Grammar Logical and Historical. Pt. 1. Oxf., 1891;. Pt. 2. Oxf., 1898.

SUBJECT INDEX

absolute and relative generalisation 77; 79; 81

absolute construction 112; 114; 180; 348-350

actional and statal verbs: see verb subclasses active (verb-form) 177-179

actual division of the sentence 243-250; 256-262; 305

address 269

adjective 38; 41; 203-220;

comparison of a. 213-219;

subclasses: evaluative, specificative a. 206-207;

qualitative, relative a. 205-207

adjectivid 213

adjunct-word 232

adverb 39; 220-229;

comparison of a. 227-228;

subclasses: functional 226-227;

structural 223-226;

a. in -ly 228-229

adverbial clause 321-328;

subtypes: circumstantial cl. 325-327;

localisation cl. 322-323;

parenthetical cl. 327-328;

qualification cl. 323-325

adverbial complication 347-350

adverbial modifier 98; 101; 235; 269

adverbid 223

agreement (concord) between subject and predicate 135-136; 232-233

agreement in sense (notional concord) 135-136

"allo-emic" theory 22-24

allo-term 22

analytical case 65

analytical form 34-35; 85; 107; 214-219

anaphoric connection: see retrospective connection appositive clause 318-321

appurtenance 69

article 40; 74-85;

identification 74-75;

definite a. 76;

indefinite a. 76-77;

functions 76-83;

a. with proper nouns 84;

a. determination paradigm 85

artificial utterances 8

aspect 108; 155-176; 182

a-stative prefix 211

aspective meaning 94

asyndetic connection 231; 298-300; 335-337

attribute 235; 269;

contact noun a. 50-51;

descriptive, limiting a. 80

attributive clause 317-321

attributive complication 345-347

autosemantic and synsemantic elements 229

auxiliary 25; 34; 85; 89

axes of sentence 274-278

be going + Infinitive 151-152

broad-meaning word 48

case 62-74

cataphoric connection: see prospective connection classes of words: syntactic cl. of w. 42-45

clausalisation 283-284

clause 289-290

cohesion of text 363

combinability: с of noun 50-51;

с of verb 97-102;

с of infinitive 105-106;

с of gerund 109-110;

с of pres. Participle 111-112;

с. of past participle 112-113;

с. of adjective 204-205;

c. of adverb 221-222

communicative direction 363

communicative purpose 251-255

communicative sentence types 251-268;

cardinal с s. t. 251-252;

intermediary с s. t. 262-268

complement 98-99

complementive and supplementive verbs: see verb subclasses completive connection: objective с. с. 233-235;

qualifying с. с. 235

completivity 99-101

complex balance 314

complex object 106; 112; 113-114; 281; 343-345

complex sentence 303-332

complex subject 106; 112; 114; 342-343; 345

composite sentence 288-302; 303-361

compound sentence 332-340

concise composition 301-302

conditional mood: see subjunctive mood conjugation 37

conjunction 40; 41; 45; 231;

see also syndetic connection conjunctive cumulation 366

connective 41-42

consective mood: see subjunctive mood constant feature category 36; 59

constituent parts of language 6

constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics 283-285

contact noun attribute: see attribute continuous (verb-form) 155-156; 158-164

continuum 19; 119

conversion 87; 120; 212-213; 224

co-occurrence 23

coordinative connection of clauses 296-298; 332-340;

marked, unmarked с. с. 336-337;

open, closed с. с. 339-340

coordinative connection of sentence constituents 270-271; 352-353

coordinators 335

corpus 23

correlative cumulation 366-367

countable, uncountable nouns 59-62

cumulation 16; 231; 300-301; 363-367

cumuleme 364; 367-371;

cumuleme-sentence 372;

factual, modal, mixed c. 369

declarative sentence 251; 256-257

declension 37

deep structure 281; 340

degrees of comparison: of adjectives 213-219;

of adverbs 227

deixis (deictic function) 39; 47; 129-130

deletion in transformations: see transformational procedures derivation history 280

derivational perspective 46

descriptions of language 6-7

descriptive attribute: see attribute determiner 74-75; 83-84; 85

development (category of) 108; 158; 158-166; 176

diachrony: see synchrony and diachrony dialogue speech 363-365

differential features 28-31

distributional analysis 23-24

distribution: complementary, contrastive, non-contrastive d. 23-24

do-auxiliary 164-166

domination (dominational connection) 232-235;

reciprocal d. 232-233

double predicate 92; 342-343

edited speech 291

elative superlative 215-218

elementary sentence 273-274

elliptical article construction 77

elliptical sentence 274-278

eme-term 22

environment 23-24

equipollent opposition 29; 30

equipotent connection 230-231

exclamatory sentence 254-255; 362

exfixation 26

expanded and unexpanded sentence 273-274

extreme quality 220

finitude (category of) 88; 104; 137

fluctuant conversive 224

for-to infinitive phrase 106

functional expansion in transformations; see transformational procedures functional sentence perspective: see actual division of the sentence functional words 39-40; 44-45; 47; 282

future tense 128; 143-154

futurity option (category of) 150

gender 53-62;

formal g. 56

genitive case 62-64; 66-68; 69-72;

g. of adverbial 71;

g. of agent 70;

g. of author 70;

g. of comparison 71;

g. of destination 71;

g. of dispensed qualification 71;

g. of integer 70

rg. of patient 71;

g. of possessor 69;

g. of quantity 72;

g. of received qualification 70

gerund 108-110; 116-123; 175

gerundial participle 122

gradual opposition 29

grammatical category 27-31; 35-37; 156-158

grammatical form 27-31

grammatical idiomatism 34-35

grammatical meaning 27

grammatical morphemes 21

grammatical opposition 28; 29-32; 35

grammatical repetition 35

grammatical suffixation: see outer inflexion hybrid categorial formation 36-37

hypotaxis 294-296

immanent category 35-36

immediate constituents 269-271

imperative (verb-form) 188-189

imperative mood 188-189; 190-191

imperative sentence: see inducive

sentence imperfect (verb-form) 156-157; 166; 173-174

incorrect utterances 8-9

indefinite (verb-form) 155; 172;

marked i. 166

inducive sentence 257-259

infinitive 89; 105-108; 115-118; 161-162; 175; 179-180;

marked, unmarked i. 107

infixation 26; 33

inflexion 21;

inner, outer i. 33-34

informative purpose 363

informative sentence perspective 244

ing-form problem 119

insert sentence 303; 342

interjection 40

intermediary phenomena 19; 36-37; 302

interrogative sentence 259-261

inter-sentential connection 361-363

intonational arrangement in transformations: see transformational procedures inversive sentence 323

junctional form 134

kernel element: see head-word kernel sentence 280-281

half-gerund 118-123

head-word (kernel element) 232 hierarchy of levels 14

homonymy 11; 24

language: definition 6

language and speech 11-12

larger syntax 15

leading clause 335

leading sentence 367

let+Infinitive 190-191

letter 14

level of constructions 18

levels of language 14-17

lexemic level 15

lexical morphemes 21

lexical paradigm of nomination 45-47

lexicalisation of plural 58

lexico-grammatical category 38

limited case 66

limiting attribute: see attribute limitive and unlimitive verbs 95-97; 113; 155 ;162-164; 173-174; 184

linear expansion 342

"linguistic sentence" 239

link-verb 91; 100

logical accent 249-250

macrosystem (supersystem) 11

marked (strong, positive) member 28; 30; 32

matrix sentence 303

may/might+Infinitive 190

meaningful functions of grammar 9

meaningful gender 56-57

medial voice 180-183

members of sentence: see axes of sentence microsystem (subsystem) 11

middle voice meaning 183

modal representation (category of) 117

modal verb 89-90; 126; 127; 161; 175

modal word 40

modality 239

modifier hierarchy 269-270

monologue speech 363-365

monolithic and segregative complex sentences 328-331

mononomination 15