SYNTAX

SYNTAX OF THE PHRASE, SYNTAGMATIC CONNECTIONS OF WORDS

SENTENCE: GENERAL
FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SENTENCE
COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES
SIMPLE SENTENCE: CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
 WORD – PHRASE – SENTENCE

 The main object of study in syntax is the communicative unit of the language, the sentence.
 The phrase is the syntactic unit used as a notional part of a sentence.

 Like the word, the phrase is a nominative unit, but it provides a complex nomination of the referent, a polynomination consisting
of several (at least two) nominative components, presenting the referent as a complicated phenomenon, cf.: a girl – a beautiful
girl; a decision – his unexpected decision; etc. Moreover, the regular free phrase does not enter speech as a ready-made unit like
the word; it is freely formed in speech, like the sentence according to a certain grammatical pattern. As for the fixed word-
combinations, idioms, they are closer to the word in the type of nomination: they are ready-made units fixed in dictionaries and
studied mainly by lexicology.

 The basic difference between the phrase and the sentence is that the phrase cannot express full predication, even if it denotes a
situation.

 The grammatical description of the phrase is seen as a separate part of syntax, the syntax of the phrase; it is sometimes called
“minor syntax”, in distinction to “major syntax”, studying the sentence and its textual connections.
THE DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE is rather a controversial issue.

In Russian linguistics, the narrow approach, which was put forward by V. V. Vinogradov, traditionally prevails:
only a combination of two notional words, one of which dominates the other, is considered a phrase.

A much broader approach was proposed by Leonard Bloomfield and it is shared by many modern linguists.
A phrase is any syntactically organized group of syntagmatically connected words; this includes combinations of
functional and notional words, and predicative and coordinative combinations of words.

So, there are the following types of phrases:

Notional phrases: semantically independent (“autosemantic”) combinations of notional words (phrases proper),
have a clearly pronounced self-dependent nominative character, they denote complex phenomena and their
properties in their inter-connections: a sudden trembling; a soul in pain; hurrying along the street; to lead to a
cross-road; strangely familiar; so sure of their aims.

Formative phrases: combination of a notional and functional word; non-self-dependent; isolated from the
context. Cf.: with difficulty; must finish; but a moment; and Jimmy; too cold; so unexpectedly. (Иванов — к Иванову;
лесом — через лес).

Functional phrases: combinations of functional words similar to regular functional words, e.g.: apart from, as
soon as, with reference to, must be able, etc.
TYPES OF CONNECTION INSIDE THE PHRASE
Based on their constituents’ rank, notional phrases are subdivided into equipotent  and dominational.

The constituents of EQUIPOTENT phrases are of equal syntactic rank; none of them modifies another, e.g.:

prose and poetry; came and went; sooner or later; quick but not careless; — syndetic connections
no sun, no moon; playing, chatting, laughing; silent, immovable, gloomy;  — asyndetic connections

In the above examples, the phrase constituents form logically consecutive connections (логически последовательные сочетания),
which are defined as “coordinative” (сочинительные):
He is mad, bad and dangerous (mad, bad and dangerous are homogeneous (однородные) predicatives).

Besides coordinative phrases, there are phrases in which the sequential element, although connected with the foregoing element by a
coordinative conjunction, is unequal to it in the character of nomination, e.g.: 
came, but late; agreed, or nearly so; etc.

Such formally equipotent phrases of a non-consecutive type are defined as “cumulative” (присоединительные). Cumulative
connection in writing is usually signaled by some intermediary punctuation mark, such as a comma or a hyphen.
In DOMINATIONAL phrases, one word modifies another. They are built on subordination. The principal constituent, which
dominates the other constituent syntactically, is called the kernel, the key-word, or the head word;
the subordinate constituent, which modifies the kernel, is called the adjunct (адъюнкт), or the expansion (расширитель).

adjunct kernel
 a beautiful girl 

Dominational connection, like equipotent connection, can be both consecutive and cumulative, cf.: 
definitely off the point (consecutive domination)  off the point, definitely (cumulative domination).

Logically consecutive dominational connections are defined as “subordinative”.

Dominational connection is achieved by different forms of the word (categorial agreement, government), connective words
(prepositions, i.e. prepositional government), or word order (adjoining, enclosure).

Agreement (согласование) takes place when the subordinate word assumes a form similar to the form of the kernel, e.g.: this
boy, these boys; the child plays, the children play; in English, words agree only in number in some grammatical contexts.
Government (управление) takes place when a certain form of adjunct is required by its head-word, but it does not coincide with
the form of the head word, e.g.: to see him; to talk to him.
Adjoining (примыкание) involves no special formal mark of dependence between constituents; words are combined by sheer
contact, e.g.: to go home.
Enclosure (замыкание) takes place in phrases in which the subordinate word is placed between two parts of an analytical head-
word form, e.g.: to thoroughly think over, the then government, an interesting question, etc.

Phrases in which the connections are expressed by prepositions only or word-order are predominant in English.
The two basic types of dominational connections are monolateral (one-way) domination and bilateral
(reciprocal, two-way) domination.

In monolateral domination the kernel dominates the adjunct: 

this boy, to talk to him, a beautiful girl, etc.
It is a subordinative type of connection.

Bilateral domination is realized in predicative connections of words, which may be either fully predicative, or semi-
predicative, e.g.: 
the pupil understands, the pupil’s understanding, the pupil understanding, for the pupil to understand.

In predicative groupings of words the subject dominates the predicate, determining the person of predication;
The predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of predication, some action, state, or quality;

L. Hjelmslev suggests the term “interdependence” to denote the connections between the constituents of bilateral
domination phrases.
All
All in
in all,
all, 44 basic
basic types
types of
of syntagmatic
syntagmatic
connections: coordination
connections: coordination (consecutive
(consecutive
equipotent
equipotent connection), subordination
connection), subordination phrases
(consecutive
(consecutive dominational
dominational
connection), predication, or
connection), predication, or
 interdependence
 interdependence (bilateral
(bilateral dominational
dominational
connection) and cumulation.
connection) and cumulation.
notional formative functional

can be both consecutive and

equipotent dominational cumulative

coordinative subordinative
(logically (one-way,
consecutive) monolateral)

predicative
cumulative
(interdependent,
bilateral)
There are OTHER APPROACHES TO DESCRIBING PHRASES:

1. The traditional classification of phrases is based on the part-of-speech characteristics of their

constituents (on the part of speech of the kernel in dominational phrases):
noun phrases (NP), e.g.: a beautiful girl; men, women and children; 
verbal phrases (VP), e.g.: went home; came and went; 
adjective phrases (AP), e.g.: quite unexpected; nice and quiet; 
adverbial phrases (AdvP), e.g.: quite unexpectedly; slowly but steadily.

2. On the base of kernel-adjunct relations, subordinative phrases can be divided into those with objective
connections (direct objective and indirect objective) and qualifying connections (attributive and
adverbial), e.g.: 
to see a child (direct objective); 
put on the table (indirect objective); 
a beautiful girl (attributive); 
came soon (adverbial).

3. On the base of the position of the adjunct in relation to the kernel, subordinative phrases are
characterized as regressive or progressive: in regressive phrases, the adjunct precedes the kernel, e.g.: 
a beautiful girl;
in progressive phrases, the adjunct follows the kernel, e.g.: 
came home.
SENTENCE: GENERAL

Difference between the word and the sentence:

 Both are nominative units, but the word just names objects and phenomena; it is a purely nominative unit, while the
sentence is at the same time a nominative and predicative unit: it names situations or events, reflecting the
connection between what is uttered and objective reality, showing the time of the event/situation, its being real or
unreal, desirable or undesirable, etc.
 A sentence can consist of only one word, as any lingual unit of the upper level can consist of only one unit of the
lower level, e.g.: Why? Thanks. But a word making up a sentence is thereby turned into an utterance-unit expressing
various connections between the situation described and actual reality.
 So, the definition of the sentence as a predicative lingual unit gives prominence to the basic differential feature of the
sentence as a separate lingual unit: it performs the nominative function, like the word or the phrase, and at the same
time it performs the reality-evaluating, or predicative function.
There is a profound difference between the nominative function of the word and the nominative function of the
sentence.

The type of nomination of a complete sentence is called a proposition (пропозиция). It reflects a situation/event,
that contains a certain process (statal or actional), the agent of the process, the objects of the process, and various
conditions and circumstances of the realization of the process.

To some extent, this kind of nomination can be realized by expanded substantive or nominal phrases (т.е., в чем-то
сходную номинацию можно видеть и в распространенных субстантивах и именных словосочетаниях ).

A sentence can be transformed into a substantive/nominal phrase through the so-called “nominalization”, e.g.:
His father arrived unexpectedly his father’s unexpected arrival, his father arriving unexpectedly, etc.

When a sentence is “nominalized”, it loses its predicative character. It, once again, means that the sentence is a
unity of two mutually complementary aspects: of the nominative aspect and the predicative aspect; and second, this
specifies the definition of predication: predication should be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the
sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality.
  For most linguists, in most circumstances, a sentence is an abstract
linguistic object: specifically, it is a linguistic object put together entirely in
accordance with the rules for constructing sentences in a language. A
sentence does not have to be something which somebody might reasonably
say, and not everything that we might reasonably say is a sentence.
Cf: Where’s Susie? – In the library.
*In the library is not a sentence of English, because it is not constructed
according to the rules for making English sentences. Instead, it is only a
fragment of a sentence: we do not always speak in complete sentences, and we
very often use fragments like this one.
SENTENCE VS.  Now consider Noam Chomsky’s famous example sentence: Colourless
green ideas sleep furiously.
UTTERANCE Chomsky’s point is that, even though this thing makes no sense at all, it is
constructed in accordance with all the rules for making sentences in English,
and hence it is a grammatical (well-formed) sentence of English.
 This brings us back to the idea of a language being both langue and parole.
The sentence as a unit of communication includes two sides inseparably
connected with each other: fixed in the system of the language
are typical models, generalized sentence patterns, which speakers follow
when constructing their own utterances in actual speech. The number of
actual sentences, or utterances, is infinite; the number of “linguistic
sentences” or sentence patterns in the system of language is definite, and
they are the object of study in grammar.
FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE (FSP)
(ACTUAL DIVISION)

 The concept was first discussed by the scholars of the Prague Linguistic Circle at the beginning of the 20 th century.
 The Czech linguist Vilém Mathesius was the first to describe the informative value of different parts of the
sentence in the actual process of communication, making the informative perspective of an utterance and showing
which component of the denoted situation is informationally more important from the point of view of the speaker.
 Functional sentence perspective (FSP) is the organization of a sentence in terms of the role of its elements in
distinguishing between old and new information, esp. the division of a sentence into theme and rheme.
Theme (basis) is the starting point of communication, a thing or a phenomenon
about which something is reported in the sentence; it usually contains some old,
“already known” information.

Rheme (nucleus) the basic informative part of the sentence, its contextually
relevant communicative center, the “peak” of communication, or the information
reported about the theme; it usually contains some new information.

There may be transitional parts of actual division of various degrees of informative

value, neither purely thematic, nor rhematic; they can be treated as a secondary
rheme, the “subrhematic” part of a sentence; this part is called transition.

E.g.: Again Charlie is late. – Again (transition) Charlie (theme) is late (rheme).

Rheme is the obligatory informative component of a sentence, there may be

sentences which include only rheme; theme and transition are optional.
The logical subject and the logical predicate, like the theme and the rheme, may or may not coincide,
respectively, with the subject and the predicate of the sentence.

When the actual division of the sentence reflects the natural flow of thinking directed from the starting
point of communication to its semantic core, from the logical subject to the logical predicate, the theme
precedes the rheme and this type of actual division is called “direct”, “unspecialized”, or “unmarked”.

In English, with its fixed word order, direct actual division means that the theme coincides with the
subject (or the subject group) in the syntactic structure of the sentence, while the rheme coincides with
the predicate (the predicate group) of the sentence, as in Charlie is late. - Charlie (theme) is
late (rheme).

In some sentences, the rheme may be expressed by the subject and it may precede the theme, which is
expressed by the predicate, e.g.: Who is late today? – Charlie (rheme) is late (theme). This type of actual
division is called “inverted”, “reverse”, “specialized”, or “marked”.

The last example shows that actual division of the sentence finds its full expression only in a concrete
context (therefore it is sometimes referred to as the “contextual” division of the sentence).
The close connection of the actual division of the sentence with the context, which makes it possible to divide the informative
parts of the communication into those “already known” by the listener and those “not yet known”, does not mean that the actual
division is a purely semantic factor. There are special formal lingual means of expressing the distinction between the
meaningful center of the utterance, the rheme, and the starting point of its content, the theme. They are as follows: word order
patterns, constructions with introducers, syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes, constructions with articles and other
determiners, constructions with intensifying particles, and intonation contours.

• The connection between word order and actual division has been described above: direct actual division usually means that
the theme coincides with the subject in the syntactic structure of the sentence, while the rheme coincides with the predicate.

• Inverted word order can indicate inverted actual division, though the correlation is not obligatory. E.g.: 
(There was a box.) Inside the box was a microphone; 
- the adverbial modifier of place at the beginning of the sentence expresses the theme, while the subject at the end of the
utterance is the rheme; the word order in this sentence is inverted, though its actual division is direct.
Reversed order of actual division, i.e. the positioning of the rheme at the beginning of the sentence, is connected with emphatic
speech, e.g.: Off you go! What a nice little girl she is!

• Constructions with the introducer ‘there’ identify the subject of the sentence as the rheme, while the theme (usually it is an
adverbial modifier of place) is shifted to the end of the utterance, e.g.: There is a book on the table. The actual division of
such sentences is reverse without any emotive connotations expressed. Cf.: The book is on the table; in this sentence both
the word order and the actual division are direct: the subject is the theme of the sentence.
• Emphatic identification of the rheme expressed by various nominative parts of the sentence (except for the predicate) is
achieved by constructions with the anticipatory ‘it’, e.g.: It is Charlie who is late; It was back in 1895 that Popov invented
radio.

• The opposed nominative parts of the sentence are marked as rhematic in sentences with contrastive complexes, e.g.: Charlie,
not John, is absent today.

• Articles and other determiners are used to identify the informative part “already known“, the theme (definite determiners) or
the “not yet known” information, the rheme (indefinite determiners). E.g.: The man (theme) appeared unexpectedly. – A
man (rheme) appeared. But this correlation is not obligatory.

• Various intensifying particles, such as only, just, merely, namely, at least, rather than, even, precisely, etc., identify the
nominative part of the sentence before which they are used as the rheme, e.g.: Only Charlie is late today. Similar is the
function of the intensifying auxiliary verb ‘do’, which turns the predicate into the rheme of the sentence, while the rest of the
predicate group is turned into the transition or even the theme, e.g.: I did help your sister (cf.: I helped your sister).

• The major lingual means of actual division of the sentence is intonation, especially the stress which identifies the rheme; it is
traditionally defined as “logical accent” or “rhematic accent”. In cases of direct actual division (which make up the majority
of sentences) the logical stress is focused on the last notional word in the sentence in the predicate group, identifying it as the
informative center of the sentence; in cases of reverse actual division, the logical stress may indicate the rheme at the
beginning of the utterance, e.g.: Charlie (theme) is late (logical accent, rheme). - Charlie (logical accent, rheme) is
late (theme). 
COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES

 The sentence is above all a communicative unit; therefore, the primary classification of sentences is based on the
communicative principle, traditionally defined as “the purpose of communication”. According to the purpose of
communication, sentences are subdivided into declarative, interrogative and imperative.
 Declarative sentences are traditionally defined as those expressing statements, either affirmative or negative,
e.g.: He (didn’t) shut the window. 
 Imperative sentences express inducements of various kinds (orders or requests); they may also be either
affirmative or negative, e.g.: (Don’t) Shut the window, please. 
 Interrogative sentences express questions, or requests for information, e.g.: Did he shut the window?
Traditionally, the so-called exclamatory sentence is distinguished as one more communicative type of sentence. Exclamatory
sentences are marked by specific intonation patterns (represented by an exclamation mark in written speech), word-order and
special constructions with functional-auxiliary words, rendering the high emotional intensity of the utterance.

But these regular grammatical features can not be treated as sufficient grounds for placing the exclamatory sentences on the same
level as the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. In fact, each cardinal communicative type, declarative, imperative or
interrogative, may be represented in its exclamatory, emotionally coloured variant, as opposed to a non-exclamatory, unemotional
variant, cf.: 
She is a nice little girl – What a nice little girl she is!;
Open the door. – For God’s sake, open the door!;
Why are you late? – Why on earth are you late?! 

Exclamation is actually an accompanying feature of the three cardinal communicative types of sentences, which discriminates
emotionally intense constructions from emotionally neutral ones at the lower level of analysis, but it does not constitute a separate
communicative type.

As for so-called “purely exclamatory sentences”, such as My God!; Goodness gracious!; etc., as was mentioned earlier, they are not
sentences in the proper sense of the term: though they occupy isolated positions like separate utterances in speech and resemble
regular sentences in written representation, these interjection-type outcries do not render any situational nomination or predication
and they possess no informative perspective. They can be defined as “non-sentential utterances” which serve as symptoms of
emotional reactions; they are also treated as “pseudo-sentences”, “sentence-substitutes” or “non-communicative utterances”
(according to Ch. Fries).
Besides the three cardinal communicative types of sentences, there are several constructional sentence
models of intermediary, mixed communicative character. The transfer of certain communicative features
from one communicative type of sentence to another can be observed in correlations of all three cardinal
communicative types, i.e. in statement – question, statement – inducement, and inducement – question
correlations.

So-called indirect questions have the form of a declarative sentence, but actually express a request for
information, e.g.: I wonder who shut the window (cf.: Who shut the window?). An answer is expected, as
with a regular question, e.g.: I wonder who shut the window. – Tom did; the response supports the mixed
communicative character of this sentence type. Sentences of this type, declarative in form and
intermediary between statements and questions in meaning, render the connotation of insistence in asking
for information.
On the other hand, so-called rhetorical questions are interrogative in their structural form, but express a
declarative functional meaning of high intensity, e.g.: How can you say a thing like this? The sentence
does not express a question; it is a reprimand. No answer is expected; the responses elicited by rhetorical
questions correspond to responses elicited by declarative sentences (signals of attention, appraisals,
expressions of feelings, etc.), e.g.: How can you say a thing like this? – Oh, I’m terribly sorry, I did not
mean it. 
Intermediary between statements and inducements are formally declarative sentences with modal verbs and other
lexical means of inducement, e.g.: 
You must shut the window; I want you to shut the window (cf.: Shut the window, please!).
The responses to these sentences are similar to those elicited by imperative sentences proper, i.e. actional responses or
verbal agreement or disagreement to perform the actions, e.g.: I want you to shut the window. - O.K., I will. On the other
hand, inducive constructions can be used to express a declarative meaning of high expressiveness and intensity, in
particular, in various proverbs and maxims, e.g.: Scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours (= One good turn deserves
another). They presuppose no actional response.

Inducive constructions can also be used to express a request for information, inducing the listener to verbal response of
information rendering; they represent another type of indirect question, e.g.: Tell me who shut the window (сf.: Who shut
the window?) The reverse intermediary construction, that of inducement in the form of a question, is very characteristic
of English; it is employed to convey various shades of politeness, suggestion, softening of a command, etc., e.g.: Will
you, please, shut the window? Could you shut the window, please? The response elicited by such polite
requests resembles the one to a proper inducement, e.g.: Will you, please, shut the window? - O.K., I will.
Thus, the classification of the communicative sentence types, in
addition to three cardinal communicative types, includes six intermediary
subtypes of sentences of mixed communicative features:

1) mixed sentence patterns of declaration (interrogative-declarative,

imperative-declarative),
2) mixed sentence patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative,
imperative-interrogative),
3) mixed sentence patterns of inducement (declarative-imperative,
interrogative-imperative).

Most of the intermediary communicative types of sentences perform

distinct stylistic functions and can be treated as cases of transposition of
the communicative types of sentences presented in oppositions,
paradigmatically.
THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS

 The communicative description of utterances was undertaken at the end of the 1960s by J. R. Searle within the
framework of the so-called “theory of speech acts”, based on philosophical ideas formulated by J. L. Austin.
 Utterances are interpreted as actions or acts by which the speaker does something (the title of the book by J.
L. Austin was How to Do Things with Words). Based on various communicative intentions of the speaker, J. R.
Searle produced a detailed classification of so-called pragmatic (i.e. pertaining to the participants and the
circumstances of the particular speech act) utterance types.
The two basic utterance types are defined as performatives (перформативы) and constatives
(констативы).
Performatives are treated as utterances by which the speaker explicitly performs a certain act, e.g.: 
I surrender; I pronounce you husband and wife;
Constatives are utterances by which the speaker states something, e.g.: 
I am a teacher.

Constatives are further subdivided into minor types, such as promissives (commissives), e.g.: I will help
you; expressives, e.g.: How very sad!; menacives, e.g.: I’ll kill you!, directives, e.g.: Get out!; requestives,
e.g.: Bring the chalk, please; etc.

From the purely linguistic point of view, various speech acts correlate structurally and functionally with
the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. The mixed communicative types of sentences can be
interpreted in the theory of speech acts as indirect speech acts, e.g.: ‘There is no chalk left’ may be
interpreted as a constative or as a directive: There is no chalk left (= bring some more); ‘I’ll be watching
you!’ under different communicative circumstances may be either a constative, a promissive or even a
menacive.

Later the theory of speech acts developed into a separate branch of linguistics known as “pragmatic
linguistics” (“pragmalinguistics”, or “pragmatics”); this approach is used in syntactic studies as
complementary to the classification of the grammatically distinguished communicative types of sentences.
SIMPLE SENTENCE: CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
 The finite verb, expressing the basic predicative meaning of the sentence and performing the function of the predicate, and the
subject combined with it form the so-called “predicative line” of the sentence.
 On the basis of predicative line presentation, sentences are divided into monopredicative (with one predicative line expressed),
i.e. simple, and polypredicative (with two or more predicative lines expressed), i.e. composite and semi-composite.
 Each notional part in a sentence expresses a certain semantic component or “role” in the situation, described by the sentence.
 The syntactic functions or the members of the sentence are traditionally divided into principal (main) and secondary. The
principal parts of the sentence are the subject and the predicate, which modify each other: the subject is the “person” modifier of
the predicate, and the predicate is the “process” modifier of the subject; they are interdependent. The secondary parts are: the
object – a substance modifier of the predicate; the attribute – a quality modifier of substantive parts, either the subject or the
object; the adverbial modifier – a quality modifier of the predicate; the apposition (приложение) – a substance modifier of the
subject; the parenthesis (parenthetical enclosure) (вводный член предложения) – а detached speaker-bound modifier either of
one of the nominative parts of the sentence or of the sentence in general; the address (addressing enclosure) (обращение) – a
modifier of the destination of the whole sentence; the interjection (interjectional enclosure) (междометие) – an emotional
modifier.
• In the middle of the 20th century, new approaches to the analysis of the sentence were developed.
• Noam Chomsky proposed the distinction between the level of the deep, semantic, or conceptual
structure of the sentence and the level of its surface, or syntactic structure, different types of construction
being connected by various transformations – transformational grammar theory. (E.g.: They appointed him
secretary = He was appointed secretary).
• C. J. Fillmore formulated the theory of case grammar: its central idea is that each notional part of the
sentence correlates with one element of the underlying semantic level and represents a semantic role.
In traditional linguistics, only adverbial modifiers enjoy a detailed semantic sub-classification into
adverbial modifiers of time, place, manner, attendant circumstances, etc. In the classification of semantic
roles, all semantic components of the situation are taken into consideration. For example, the “Agent” is the
personal doer of the action, the “Power” the impersonal doer of the action, the “Patient” the direct object of
the action, the “Instrument” the object with the help of which the action is fulfilled, the “Locative” some point
or location in space, etc.
• The classification of semantic roles is complementary to the classification of notional parts of the sentence,
and the two classifications can be employed together to better describe the nominative aspect of the
sentence. For instance, the subject can be described as subject-agent, e.g.: I opened the door; as subject-
patient, e.g.: The door was opened; subject-power, e.g.: The wind opened the door; subject-instrument,
e.g.: The key opened the door; subject-locative, e.g.: Moscow hosted a summit, etc.
All nominative parts of the sentence are syntagmatically
connected, and the relations between them can be analyzed in a
linear as well as in a hierarchical way (“immediate constituents”
analysis, IC analysis), e.g.:
The structural pattern of the sentence is determined by the valency of the verb-predicate; the verb
functions as the central predicative organizer of the sentence constituents. The subdivision of all
notional sentence parts into obligatory and optional in accord with the valency of the verb-predicate
makes it possible to distinguish the category of “elementary sentence”: it is a sentence in which all the
positions are obligatory; in other words, an “elementary sentence” includes, besides the principal
parts, only complementive modifiers.

The elementary sentence coincides structurally with the so-called unexpanded simple sentence, a

monopredicative sentence, which includes only obligatory nominative parts. The expanded simple
sentence includes also some optional parts, i.e. supplementive modifiers, which do not violate the
syntactic status of the simple sentence, i.e. do not make it into a composite or semi-composite
sentence.

For example, the sentence ‘He gave me the book’ is unexpanded, because all the nominative parts of
this sentence are required by the obligatory valency of the verb to give; cf.: *He gave…; He gave
me… - these constructions would be semantically and structurally deficient.

The sentence ‘He gave me a very interesting book’ is expanded, because it includes an expansion, the
attribute-supplement very interesting; the second sentence is reducible to the elementary unexpanded
sentence built on the syntagmatic pattern of the bicomplementive verb to give.
COMPLETE / INCOMPLETE SENTENCES

 In complete sentences both the subject group and the predicate group are present; they are also
called “two-member sentences” or “two-axis sentences”; if only one axis is expressed in the
outer structure of the sentence, the sentence is defined as incomplete; it is also called “one-
member sentence”, “one-axis sentence”, or “elliptical sentence”.
THE SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION OF SIMPLE SENTENCES is based on principal parts semantics.

On the basis of subject categorial meaning, sentences are divided into impersonal, e.g.: It drizzles; There is no
use crying over spilt milk; and personal; personal sentences are further subdivided into human and non-
human. Human sentences are further subdivided into definite, e.g.: I know it; and indefinite, e.g.: One never
knows such things for sure. Non-human sentences are further subdivided into animate, e.g.: A cat entered the
room; and inanimate, e.g.: The wind opened the door. Impersonal sentences may be further subdivided
into factual, e.g.: It drizzles; and perceptional, e.g. It looks like rain.

On the basis of predicate categorial meaning, sentences are divided into process featuring (“verbal”)
and substance featuring (“nominal”); process featuring sentences are further subdivided into actional, e.g.: I
play ball; and statal, e.g.: I enjoy your party; substance featuring sentences are further subdivided into factual,
e.g.: She is clever; and perceptional, e.g.: She seems to be clever. As the examples show, the differences in
subject categorial meaning are sustained by obvious differences in the subject-predicate combinability.

In practical courses on grammar, various subdivisions of simple sentences are usually based on the structure of
the predicate: predicates are subdivided into simple (I read) and compound, which are further subdivided
into compound verbal predicates (She started crying) and compound nominal predicates with pure and
specifying link verbs (She looked beautiful).

On the basis of subject-object relations, simple sentences are divided into subjective, e.g.: He is a
writer; objective, e.g.: He is writing a book; and neutral or “potentially” objective, e.g.: He is writing.