Lecture 5.

Simple Sentence: Constituent structure

The basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence are
expressed by the finite verb which is immediately connected with the sub-
ject of the sentence. This predicative connection is commonly referred to
as the “predicative line” of the sentence. Depending on their predicative
complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several (2 or
more) predicative lines; i.e. sentences may be “monopredicative” and
“polypredicative”. The simple sentence is a sentence in which only one
predicative line is expressed: Bob has never left the stadium.
The simple sentence is organized as a system of function-expressing
positions. The nominative parts of the simple sentence, each occupying a
notional position in it, are subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute,
parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure; a special, semi-notional po-
sition is occupied by an interjectional enclosure. These are arranged in a
hierarchy, where all of them perform some role.
Thus, the subject is a person-modifier of the predicate. The predic-
ate is a process-modifier of the subject-person. The object is a substance-
modifier of a processual part. The adverbial is a quality-modifier of a
processual part or the whole of the sentence. The attribute is a quality-
modifier of a substantive part. The parenthetical enclosure is a detached
speaker-bound modifier of any sentence part or the whole of the sentence.
The addressing enclosure is a substantive modifier of the sentence as a
whole. The interjectional enclosure is a speaker-bound emotional modi-
fier of the sentence. All the modifiers may be expressed singly or in a co-
ordinative combination (homogeneous modifiers).
The traditional scheme of sentence parsing is as follows: The small
lady listened to me attentively.
The lady listened
small to me attentively
This scheme shows many essential traits of the said functional hier-
archy. Sentence-parts connected by bonds of immediate domination are
placed one under the other in a successive order of subordination, while
sentence-parts related to one another equipotently are placed in a hori-
zontal order. Direct connections are presented by horizontal and vertical
lines. However, while distinctly exposing the subordination ranks of sen-
tence-parts, this scheme fails to present their linear order in speech.
This drawback is overcome by “IC model”. It is based in the group-
parsing of the sentence. It consists in dividing the whole of the sentence
into 2 groups: subject-group and predicate-group, which are subdivided
into their sub-group constituents according to their successive subordinat-
ive order. The IC model shows the whole structure of the sentence as
made up by binary immediate constituents. The process of syntactic IC
analysis continues until the word-level of the sentence is reached, words
being looked upon as ultimate constituents of the sentence. The result of
IC analysis is presented in the “IC – derivation tree”(see table).
When analyzing sentences two types of subordinate relations are ex-
posed: obligatory and optional, i.e. such as may or may not be presented
in the syntactic unit. Comparing the IC-representation of the sentence
with the pattern of obligatory syntactic positions, it is easy to see that it
reveals the essential generalized model of the sentence (semantico-syn-
tactic backbone). E.g. in the cited example this pattern will be expressed
by the string “The lady listened to me”, the attribute “small” and the ad-
verbial “attentively” being the optional parts of the sentence.
The division of all the notional sentence-parts into obligatory and op-
tional helps to define the unexpanded simple sentence as a monopredicat-
ive sentence formed only by obligatory notional parts, and the expanded
simple sentence as a monopredicative sentence which includes besides
obligatory, also optional parts.
Each real sentence of speech is reducible to one or more elementary
sentences. However intricate and expanded the simple sentence might be,
it is formed upon single elementary sentence base, exposing its structural
key-model. E.g. The tall by the island shore were shaking violently in the
gusty mind. – This sentence is built upon the key-string: The trees were
shaking.
The subject-group and the predicate group of the sentence are its 2
constitutive “members” or its “axes”(in the Russian grammar tradition
“составы предложений”). According as both members are present in the
composition of the sentence or only one of them, sentences are classed
into “two-member” and “one-member” ones, or “two-axis” construc-
tions and “one-axis” constructions. In a two-axis sentence, the subject
axis and the predicate axis are directly and explicitly expressed in the
outer structure: The books come out of the experiences. What has been
happening there? You better go back to bed.
In a one-axis sentence only one axis or its part is explicitly ex-
pressed, the other one being non-presented in the outer structure of the
sentence:
Who will meet us at the airport? – Mary. (* Mary will meet us at the
airport).
And what is your opinion of me? – Hard as nails, absolutely ruth-
less. (* You are hard as nails, absolutely ruthless).
I thought he might have something to you. – Not a word. (* He said
not a word to me).
 Glad to see you after all these years! (* I’m glad to see you after all
these years!)
In all these sentences both the non-expression of the predicate and its ac-
tual implication in the sub-text are obligatory. These examples belong to
“elliptical” sentences. They possess quite definite “vacant” positions cap-
able of being supplied with corresponding fillers implicit in the situational
context, and we class them as “free” one-axis sentences.
There are also one-axis sentences without a contextual implication of
this kind. Their absent axis cannot be restored with the same ease and ac-
curacy. He smacked her on both cheeks. “Brute!” screamed she. This
sentence can be expanded into “You are a brute!” but the spontaneous
“scream-style” of the utterance of the context will be utterly distorted:
Packing up. The nagging worry of the departure. Lost keys, unwritten la-
bels, tissue paper lying on the floor. Assosiations referring to the absent
axes in the cited sentences are indeed very vague. The implications
should be of demonstrative-introductory character making the presented
nominals into predicative names.
All the constructions of the second order differ from those of the first
order, we class them as “fixed”. Among the fixed types of one-axis sen-
tences quite a few subclasses are recognized: nominative (nominal) con-
structions, greeting formulas, introduction formulas, incentives, etc.
However varied, one-axis sentences form a minor set of sentence
patterns, they are related to 2-axis sentences by direct or indirect associ-
ation.
The semantic classification of simple sentences is based on 3 fea-
tures (table 63):
1) the basis of the subject categorial meanings
2) the basis of the predicate categorial meanings
3) the basis of subject-predicate relations

table 63. Semantic Classification of Simple Sentences (bases)

1. Subject categorial meaning
2. Predicate categorial meaning
3. Subject-predicate relations
The semantic classification of simple sentences based on the subject
categorial meaning is shown in table 64.
table 64. Semantic Classification of Simple Sentences based on
the Subject Categorial Meaning

Simple Sentences
 Personal Impersonal

Factual Perceptional
It rains It smells of hay here.
Human Non-Human

Definite Indefinite Animate Inanimate

The difference in subject categorial meanings are sustained by obvi-

ous differences in Subject-Predicate combinability.

table 65. Semantic Classification of Simple Sentences based on

the Predicate Categorial Meaning

Simple Sentences

Process-Featuring Substance-Featuring
(Verbal) (Nominal)

Actional Statal Factual Perceptional

The window is The window is The sea is rough. The place seems
opening. glistenning. quiet.

table 66. Semantic Classification of Simple Sentences based on

the Subject-Predicate Relations

Simple Sentences

Subjective Neutral (Potentially Objective) Objective

John lives in London. John reads. John reads a book.

Reflecting the subject-object relations, simple sentences are divided

into subjective (John lives in London), objective (John reads a book) and
neutral (or potentially objective) (John reads), capable of implying both the
transitive action of the syntactic person and the syntactic person’s intransit-
ive characteristics.