Chapter XXVI

PARTS OF A SENTENCE. THE MAIN PARTS

It is common in grammatical theory to distinguish between main and secondary parts of a sentence. Besides these two types there is one more — elements which are said to stand outside the sentence structure.

In starting now to study parts of the sentence in Modern English, we will begin by analysing the principle or principles on which this classification is based.

There are two generally recognised main parts of the sentence — the subject and the predicate. As to the secondary parts, their number varies slightly. Among them wo usually find the object (with its subdivisions), the attribute, and the adverbial modifier. Other secondary parts are also sometimes mentioned — the apposition (its relation to the attribute is variously interpreted), the objective predicative, and occasionally some other parts, too.

The reason for calling the subject and the predicate the main parts of the sentence and distinguishing them from all other parts which are treated as secondary, is roughly this. The subject and the predicate between them constitute the backbone of the sentence: without them the sentence would not exist at all, whereas all oilier parts may or may not be there, and if they are there, they serve to define or modify either the subject or the predicate, or each other.

A linguistic experiment to prove the correctness of this view would be to take a sentence containing a subject, a predicate, and a number of secondary parts, and to show that any of the secondary parts might be removed without the sentence being destroyed, whereas if either the subject or the predicate were removed there would be no sentence left: its "backbone" would be broken. This experiment would probably succeed and prove the point in a vast majority of cases. We will therefore stick to the division of sentence parts into main and secondary, taking the subject and the predicate to be the main parts, and all the others to be secondary.

THE SUBJECT AND THE PREDICATE

The question now arises, how are we to define the subject of a sentence? The question may also be put in a different way: what criteria do we practically apply when we say that a word (or, sometimes, a phrase) is the subject of a sentence?

In trying to give a definition of the subject, we shall have to include in it both general points, valid for language in general, and specific points connected with the structure of Modern English. Thus the definition of the subject in Modern English will only partly, not wholly, coincide with its definition, say, in Russian.

198 PARTS OP A SENTENCE. THE MAIN PARTS

First let us formulate the structure of the definition itself. It is bound to contain the following items: (1) the meaning of the subject, i. e. its relation to the thought expressed in the sentence, (2) its syntactical relations in the sentence, (3) its morphological realisation: here a list of morphological ways of realising the subject must be given, but it need not be exhaustive, as it is our purpose merely to establish the essential characteristics of every part of the sentence...

The definition of the subject would, then, be something like this. The subject is one of the two main parts of the sentence. (1) It denotes the thing ¹whose action or characteristic is expressed by the predicate. (2) It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence. (3) It may be expressed by different parts of speech, the most frequent ones being: a noun in the common case, a personal pronoun in, the nominative case, a demonstrative pronoun occasionally, a substantivised adjective, a numeral, an infinitive, and a gerund. It may also be expressed by a phrase.²

In discussing problems of the subject, we must mention the argument that has been going on for some time about sentences of the following type: It gave Hermione a sudden convulsive sensation of pleasure, to see these rich colours under the candlelight. (LAWRENCE) Two views have been put forward concerning such sentences. One is, that the pronoun it at the beginning of the sentence is the formal subject, and the real subject is the infinitive (in this particular case, to see). The other view is, that it is the subject of the sentence, and the infinitive an apposition to it. There is something to be said on both sides of the question. On the whole, however, the second view seems preferable, as the division of subjects into formal and real ones seems hard to justify in general syntactical theory.

¹ The term "thing" has to be taken in its widest sense, including human beings, abstract notions, etc.

² We do not speak here about subordinate clauses performing the function of subject, since in that case the sentence is composite. See below, p. 286 ff.

THE PREDICATE 199

As we have seen, the definition of the subject given here includes mention of the predicate. This is in accordance with the view stated above, that the two notions are correlative, that is to say, there is a subject in two-member sentences only. In a similar way, a definition of the predicate will have to include mention of the subject.

Following the same pattern in the definition of the predicate, we arrive at the following result. The predicate is. one of the two main parts of the sentence. (1) It denotes the action or property of the thing expressed by the subject. (2) It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence. (3) Ways of expressing the predicate are varied and their structure will better be considered under the heading of types of predicate. Here it will suffice to say that among them are: a finite verb form, and a variety of phrases, for instance, phrases of the following patterns: "finite verb + infinitive", "link verb + noun", "link verb + adjective", "link verb + preposition + noun", etc.

The assertion that the predicate is not dependent on any other part of the sentence, including the subject, requires some comment. It is sometimes claimed that the predicate agrees in number with the subject: when the subject is in the singular, the predicate is bound to be in the singular, and when the subject is in the plural, the predicate is bound to be in the plural as well. However, this statement is very doubtful. As we have seen above (p. 182), there is much to be said in favour of the view that the category of number in the predicate verb is independent of the number in the subject. This is especially confirmed by sentences like My family are early risers, where the plural number in the link verb shows the plurality of the acting persons, though the subject noun is in the singular. Besides it should be noted that this question of concord or no concord is one that belongs to the level of phrases, not to that of the sentence and its parts. Thus, there seems to be no valid reason for thinking that the predicate is in any way dependent on the subject.

Types of Predicate

Predicates may be classified in two ways, one of which is based on their structure (simple and compound), and the other on their morphological characteristics (verbal and nominal).

If we take the structural classification as the basic one we obtain the following types:

A Simple predicate

(1) Verbal

(2) Nominal

201 PARTS OF A SENTENCE, THE MAIN PARTS

В Compound predicate

(1) Verbal

(2) Nominal

If we were to take the morphological classification as the basic one the result would be the following:

A Verbal predicate

(1) Simple

(2) Compound

В Nominal predicate

(1) Simple

(2) Compound

The ultimate result is of course the same in both cases.

Most of the predicate types mentioned here do not call for any comment. However, something has to be said on two questions: the simple nominal predicate and the limits of the compound verbal predicate.

The simple nominal predicate, that is, a predicate consisting merely of a noun or an adjective, without a link verb, is rare in English, but it is nevertheless a living type and must be recognised as such.

The spheres of its use appear to be mainly two. One of these is found in sentences where the immediate neighbourhood of the subject noun and the predicate noun or adjective is used to suggest the impossibility or absurdity of the idea that they might be connected. Sentences with this kind of simple nominal predicate are always exclamatory, that is, they are pronounced with the exclamatory intonation, and have an exclamation mark in writing. For instance, the sentence from a play by Shaw, My ideas obsolete!!!!!!! (with seven exclamation marks) expresses the speaker's indignation at hearing his ideas characterised as obsolete by a younger man. ¹ It would not do to call such sentences elliptical (see also p. 261), since the link verb cannot be added without completely changing the meaning of the sentence.

In our next example the subject is followed by an infinitive with an inserted clause between them: Such an old, old lady, he came near to saying out loud to himself, to come so far, on a train called the Blue Mountain, out of the south, into the north. (BUECHNER) The infinitive to come here clearly performs the function of predicate.

¹ O. Jespersen calls such sentences "nexus of deprecation" (see O. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, Part III, p. 372 ff.).

THE SIMPLE NOMINAL PREDICATE 202

Though there is no exclamation mark at the end of the sentence, it is clearly exclamatory. The idea expressed in it might also be expressed in this way: That such an old, old lady... should come so far, on a train called the Blue Mountain, out of the south, into the north. In our next example both sentences have a predicate infinitive without to: George mind tennis on Sunday! George, after his education, distinguish between Sunday — (FORSTER) This is said in reply to a suggestion that George would refuse to play tennis on a Sunday.

Another type of sentence with a simple nominal predicate is that in which the predicative comes first, the subject next, and no link verb is either used or possible. Such sentences seem to occur chiefly in colloquial style, for instance: "Splendid game, cricket," remarked Mr Barbecue-Smith heartily to no one in particular; "so thoroughly English" (HUXLEY) This is a sentence with a simple nominal predicate. There is inversion, no article with the predicative noun, and the style is very colloquial. The phrase representing the rheme comes first, and after it comes the word representing the theme. That it is the theme is made quite clear by the preceding context. Priscilla, the mistress of the house, is reading a newspaper at breakfast: "I see Surrey won," she said, with her mouth full, "by four wickets. The sun is in Leo: that would account for it!" Although the word cricket is not mentioned, it is quite evident, from the words Surrey (which here denotes a cricket team), won and wickets, that she has been reading about the latest cricket match. The latter part of Mr Barbecue-Smith's speech, so thoroughly English, adds another predicative to the first, splendid game, and also with no link verb to it. If changed into the usual compound nominal predicate pattern, the sentence would run: "Cricket is a splendid game; it is so thoroughly English"; the meaning would be quite the same as in the original sentence but the specific colloquial colouring would be gone altogether.

Поиск по сайту: