The Simple Sentence and its categories

1. The problem of the sentence definition.

2. Predicativity as one of the main categories of the sentence.
3. Modality as a sentential category.
4. The category of negation, its types.

1. The problem of the sentence definition.

The word syntax is derived from the Greek syntaxis which literally
means composition or order. It is a part of Grammar which studies ways of arranging words into
phrases and sentences in order to produce speech. We communicate only with the help of
sentences and it brings many linguists to a conclusion that syntax is the core, or the heart of
grammar and morphology is subordinated to it as it serves the needs of syntax. The main units of
the syntactic level of the language are: 1) the word in its syntactic position in the sentence (a part
of the sentence); 2) the phrase which is a combination of two or more notional words arranged
according to the rules of a particular language; 3) the simple sentence as the minimum unit of
communication; 4) the composite sentence which is a combination of two or more clauses based
either on coordination (a compound sentence) or subordination (a complex sentence); 5) the text
as the highest unit of language.
Being the central unit of syntax, the simple sentence has always been in the focus of
linguistic attention. The problem of its definition appears to be quite complicated. The German
scholar John Ries in his book Was ist ein Satz? written in 1931 collected 139 definitions of the
simple sentence. By now this number may have doubled. The sentence is a many-sided
phenomenon and can be studied from several aspects. Its main aspects are: form which deals
with the problem how the sentence is built; meaning which tells us what the sentence is about;
function which is correlated with the question what for the sentence is pronounced. The most
exhaustive definition of the sentence is the one that embraces all the three aspects. Thus, the
sentence can be defined as a group if words based on predicative relations which expresses
a complete thought about an event of reality and is used with a certain communicative aim.
Another problem arising in the study of the sentence is its level belonging, i.e. whether it is a unit
of the language system or that of speech. Unlike words sentences do not exist in the language
system as ready-made units. They are created by the speaker in the act of communication. Yet
each sentence created by the speaker in the process of communication has at its basis a limited
set of syntactic and semantic structures typical of many sentences of the language. These typical
structures are a part of the speaker’s competence of the language (mental grammar). They exist
in the speaker’s mind in the form of patterns into which words can be arranged. These patterns
are partially genetically determined and partially acquired in the process of a language
acquisition. Here we share the views of the linguists (N.Chomsky, S.Pinker, R.Jackendoff and
others) who believe in the existence of a language instinct. According to their views a child’s
mind and a child’s language competence do not present a tabula rasa but have some genetically
determined qualities, so “the ability to speak and understand a human language is a complex
combination of nature and nurture” [Jackendoff 1994,6]. Thus, we may conclude that the
sentence belongs to both – language and speech. From the point of its underlying (basic)
syntactic structure upon which it is built and which is repeated in an indefinite number of
utterances it presents a unit of language. When actualized in real communication and uttered
with a certain communicative aim and a certain intonation it becomes a unit of speech and is
usually referred to as the utterance. The differentiation of the sentence as a unit of language and
the utterance as a unit of speech is correlated with the basic dichotomy of language and speech,
which is observed on all levels of language: the phoneme vs sound, the lexeme vs word, the
sentence vs utterance, the text vs discourse. The utterance as a unit of speech is much wider in its
characteristics than the sentence taken isolatedly from the communicative context. For example,
the sentence It is cold in different communicative contexts may express a question when uttered
with the rising tone “It is cold?” or an implicit request “It’s cold”(“Give me something warm to
wear” or “Close the window”). However, very often in linguistic studies the term ‘sentence’ is
used to refer to both; the sentence as a unit of language and the utterance as the actualization of
the sentence in speech.

2. Predicativity as one of the main categories of the sentence

There exist as many definitions of predicativity as of the sentence. V.G.Gak points out
three main approaches to the understanding of predicativity: logical, denotational (semantic) and
formal (syntactic) [Гак 2000, 550]. In our course we accept the following definition of
predicativity: predicativity is a category which refers the nominative contents of the
sentence to reality [ Blokh 1983, 243]. Predicativity involves establishing subject-predicate
relations which, in its turn, is accomplished through the grammatical categories of tense, mood,
number and person. (It is true however that once we use the English verb in the position of the
predicate, not only these three categories but the other four (number, aspect, time correlation and
mood) will also be expressed by the grammatical form of the predicate, but they are not directly
related to the expression of predicativity).
The expression of predicativity in the sentence is usually referred to as predication.
Scholars differentiate between primary and secondary predication and also
between explicit and implicit types of predication. Primary predication establishes subject-
predicate relations and makes the backbone of the sentence. It is expressed by the finite form of
the verb. E.g.: Cranes are flying. Secondary predication is contained in gerundial, infinitival,
participial constructions, detached parts of the sentence. Such structures name an event but do
not place it in time, e.g. I saw cranes flying. Structures of secondary predication cannot function
as autonomous sentences and they are related to the objective reality only through the main
predicative line of the sentence. From the point of view of their derivational history these
structures are the result of syntactic transformation of two simple sentences and joining them
into one. E.g.: I saw cranes. The cranes were flying. → I saw cranes flying. Therefore, sentences
which have, besides the main predicative line, a structure of secondary predication (an
infinitival, participial or a gerundial structure) cannot be treated as simple, they are semi-
composite by their structure.
Predication expressed by the finite form of the verb and by the structures of secondary
predication is explicitly presented in the sentence. Implicit predication is contained in sentences
which are structurally simple and yet name not one but two events of reality. This is usually
found in sentences which contain event-nouns, e.g. I was late because of the rain. This sentence
presents information about two events: 1) I was late; 2) It rained. (There was rain). In fact any
noun or a personal pronoun may function as an event-noun. E.g. I was late because of the train
(my leg, my dog, my wife, her etc.)

3. Modality as a sentential category

The second sentential category is modality. It is one of the most complicated linguistic
categories which has various forms of its expression in the language. It also has a lot of various
definitions and interpretations. In the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary modality is defined as
a functional-semantic category which expresses different types of the relations between the
utterance and reality as well as different types of subjective evaluation of the information
contained in the utterance [ЛЭС 1990, 303]. As we can see from the definition, modality
expresses two types of relations and consequently includes two levels. For this reason, scholars
usually differentiate between two types of modality: objective, or primary and subjective, or
secondary. The consistent differentiation of the two types of modality was also stimulated by the
studies of Ch. Bally who considered that each utterance consists of two parts, the part which
presents information he called it ‘dictum’) and the part which presents the speaker’s evaluation
of this information (he called it ‘modus’) [Балли 1955]. Modus and dictum as components of the
utterance can be best presented by the structure of a complex sentence with an object clause, e.g.
I think he is going to be late, in which the principal clause is the modus and the subordinate
clause is the dictum.
The primary modality expresses the relation of the contents of the sentence to reality as
established by the speaker who, choosing the appropriate form of the mood, presents the event as
real, unreal or desirable. It is expressed by the grammatical form of mood and thus it is a
component of predicativity and as such it always finds a grammatical expression in the sentence.
E.g. You are my wife. Be my wife. I wish you were my wife. Thus, primary modality as a
component of predicativity is an obligatory feature of the sentence – we cannot make a sentence
without expressing primary modality, i.e. without establishing the relations between the
nominative contents of the sentence and reality.
Secondary modality presents another layer of modality, built over the primary modality.
It does not always find an explicit expression in the sentence. Secondary modality is not
homogeneous. It contains two layers and therefore we can differentiate between two types of
secondary modality. The first type expresses the relations between the subject of the sentence
and the action. The action may be presented as possible, permissive, obligatory, necessary,
desirable or unnecessary for the subject. In syntactic linguistic studies this type of modality is
called action modality [Jacobs 1995, 225] and it is expressed by the modal verbs in their
predicate-oriented meanings: ability, possibility, permission, necessity, obligation etc.
E.g.: Children must be seen but not heard. I can jump puddles. You may be free for today. This
type of modality is contained within the dictum of the sentence and cannot be presented outside
the dictum.
The second type of secondary modality expresses the attitude of the speaker to the
contents of the utterance or the speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood of the event presented in
the utterance. This type of modality is called epistemic modality [Jacobs 1995, 226]. This type of
modality has various means of expression in the language. It can be expressed by: modal words,
modal adverbs and modal particles: maybe, probably, certainly, of course, perhaps, sure,
evidently, supposedly, allegedly, presumably, luckily, fortunately etc. (e.g. This is probably the
best chance you have ever had); by modal verbs in their sentence-oriented meanings: probability,
doubt, supposition, certainty, disbelief (e.g. If she went out Wednesday night someone may have
noticed. She couldn’t have done it alone); by modalized verbs seem, to appear, happen, chance
(She appeared to be holding something back from him); by the so called performative verbs and
phrases which name speech and mental acts: think, suppose, presume, guess, doubt, be certain,
be sure etc. (e.g. I guess you are right; I am afraid this is true); by special syntactic structures
like ‘tag questions’ (This is true, isn’t it?), as well as by intonation and word order (compare in
Russian: До ближайшей станции километров десять будет where uncertainty is expressed
by the word order in the phrase and also by the use of the future tense).
Modality is one of the most culture-sensitive categories and the specific feature of
English is the abundance and the frequent use of various means of expressing secondary
modality which reflects such an important cultural concept as personal space. When making
different statements about various events of reality speakers of English tend to present it as their
personal point of view on the event thus not intruding into the hearer’s personal space. The
frequent use of various modal means is also related to the principle of politeness characteristic of
British speech etiquette. This principle includes the following maxims: 1) Don’t impose. 2) Give
options. 3) Make the hearer feel good – be friendly [Brown, Levinson 1978]. In accordance
with this principle which is a component of a wider category known as indirectness, the English
speech is characterized by an abundant use of various means of subjective modality which make
the speech more tentative / less assertive. Sometimes these means are piled in the sentence as in
the following example from S.Maugham: “I don’t wish to seem spiteful but I am afraid I do not
think she can have been a very nice woman”.
Modality is also gender-sensitive and there are obvious differences between men’s and
women’s speech in their use of modal means. The American linguist R.Lakoff points out that
female speech usually lacks the assertiveness of male speech as women use various means of
expressing subjective modality that impart a more tentative character to their speech, e.g. M. –
This is better. W. – This is better, isn’t it? ( don’t you think?) [Lakoff 1975].

4. The category of negation, its types.

The next sentential category is negation which shows that the relations established
between the components of the sentence do not exist in reality, from the speaker’s point of view
( A.M.Peshkovsky) , or that the speaker denies the truth of the proposition (Ch. Bally). From the
point of view of its expression negation can be considered as a functional semantic category
because it has various forms of expression in the language: grammatical, lexical and word-
building. The grammatical negators are: the negative particle not used with the predicate (e.g.
I do not know him), the negative pronouns and adverbs: no, nobody, none, nothing, nowhere,
never (He is nowhere to be found), the negative conjunctions neither, nor (He did not speak. Nor
did he look at her). Negation can also be expressed lexically with the help of such verbs as fail,
deny, object, mind, reject, refuse, lack, miss, the adjectives absent, the adverbs out, away, the
preposition without etc. There are also negative affixes in English which participate in the
expression of negation and derive words with opposite meanings: the suffix -less ( merciless,
penniless, bookless, husbandless etc.) and the prefixes un-, in-, im-, il-, ir-, dis-, mis-
(unnecessary, inadequate, immaterial, illogical, irregular, dishonest, misquote etc.).
According to its scope negation may be complete when the whole proposition is
denied and partial when only a part of the proposition is denied. The part of the proposition
which falls under the scope of negation is referred to as the sphere of negation [E.V.Paducheva,
ЛЭС, 1990, 354 -355]. In cases of complete negation, the whole proposition comes into the
sphere of negation whereas in sentences with partial negation the sphere of negation embraces
only a part of the proposition. E.g. No one understood his jokes. We understood none of his
jokes – complete negation. Some people did not understand his jokes (Some people did and
others did not understand his jokes). We did not understand some of his jokes (We understood
only some of his jokes and did not understand other jokes) – partial negation. Very often
complete negation is expressed in sentences with negative pronouns, adverbs and the negative
form of the predicate (There was no one at home. He did not return), and partial negation is
observed in the cases when the negative particle not is placed before the component which is
embraced by the sphere of negation (Can you help me? – Not today (I can help you but not
today). His advice helped me but not too much). Yet there is no one-to-one correlation between
the type of negation (complete or partial) and the means of expressing it.
Besides explicit there are also implicit negators in English, the most frequent of them are
the adverbs scarcely, hardly and too. E.g.: You scarcely know anyone here, do you? He was too
preoccupied to notice anything. The use of the words anyone, anything and the affirmative form
of the tag show that the sentences are grammatically negative. Implicit negation is also contained
in ‘wish’ sentences. The sentence ‘I wish it were true’ implies that it is not true. It is also
contained in infinitive sentences of the type ‘Me to marry again?!’ (compare with Russian:
Чтобы я еще раз его попросила о чем-то?!).
Negation in English has some specific features different from Russian. 1) English
sentences are mononegative whereas Russian sentences are polynegative. E.g. Мне никто
никогда ничего не говорит – No one ever tells me anything. When we describe English
sentences as mononegative, we mean only the use of grammatical negators. 2) In English the
negator tends to be placed in the modal part of the utterance, which makes the statement less
assertive. E.g. I don’t suppose you’d want to give up waiting at tables? (D. Steel). 3) The second
part of a tag-question and the response to the utterance depend on the affirmative/negative
character of the previous remark. When the basic part of the sentence is affirmative, the tag is
negative, and when the basic part is negative, the tag is affirmative.