Introduction. Syntax is 1 a system of rules and means of creating

part is expressed by a finite verb (a phrasal verb, a modal verb, a verb
expressing attitude, intention, planning etc) or a link verb. The researcher
distinguishes between the compound verbal predicate and compound nominal
predicate. The compound verbal predicate is of two types: compound verbal
phasal predicate and compound verbal modal predicate.
The compound verbal phasal predicate denotes the beginning, duration,
repetition or end of the action. It consists of a phasal verb and an infinitive or
gerund. According to its first component can be a phasal verb of the beginning,
duration, repetition and cessation of the action. The compound verbal modal
predicate consists of a modal part and an infinitive (or a gerund). The modal
part is expressed by a modal verb, a modal expression (to be able, to be willing,
to be going), an attitudinal verb (to like, to mean, to plan, to try, to mind, to
want). The compound verbal predicate of double orientation consists of two
parts, the first part is finite verb which denotes the attitude to, evaluation of, or
comment on, the content of the sentence expressed by the speaker or
somebody not mentioned in the sentenced. The second parts denotes the
action, performed by the person/non-person expressed by the subject.
He is said to be looking for a new job.
The plane is reported to have been lost.
The compound nominal predicate consists of the link verb and the
predicative. The predicative can be expressed by a noun, an adjective, a
pronoun, a numeral, a verbal, a verbal phrase, a prepositional phrase, a stative,
an indivisible group of words, a clause.
There is also the compound nominal double predicate and other mixed
types of the predicate that combine the elements of different types, such as the
compound modal verbal nominal predicate, the compound modal phasal
predicate and others.
II. The secondary parts of the sentence in the contrasted languages are
the object, the attribute, the adverbial modifier, the paranthesis.
1. The Object. The general implicit morphological nature, the syntactic
function and the nomenclature of the secondary parts of the sentence are
generally isomorphic in the contrasted languages. Allomorphic features are
observed, as a rule, in the structural forms of some types of English objects,
attributes and adverbial modifiers, though some Russian secondary parts of
the sentence are also characterised by divergent features of their own. The
secondary parts of the sentence in the contrasted languages are as follows:
The object which has in English and Russian both isomorphic and
allomorphic features. Common, for example, is the functioning of the object as
a "subjective complement" (G.G.Pocheptsov), eg: She was invited by me
As to its structural forms, the object in both contrasted languages may be:
a) simple: I thought that the bank rented it. (F. King)
Then she heard music. (S. Hill)
...he called "Hsst" several times. (Galsworthy) b) Simple prepositional: He was afraid of this. (Hailey)
це. "May I speak to Lucy?" "Можна звернутися до Люсі?" с) Extended
(expressed by a subordinate word-group): "I do so dislike the summer crowds."
(S. Hill). In his book he had drawn some pretty nasty characters. (Ibid.) d) Expanded objects (expressed by the coordinate word-groups): The other two women continued to discuss the gas and
electricity bills. (F. King) ...the car brought his father and mother home.
(Galsworthy) These structural types of object have their equivalents in
Russian:
Though the first of the
expanded objects in Russian may also be treated as the expanded prepositional object, since it is preceded by the preposition. Consequently, the nomenclature of some subtypes of the object may also be enlarged in the contrasted languages.
Apart from the afore named there are also other common types of the
object/adjective complement in the contrasted languages.
The first to be named are the following traditionally distinguished ones: 1)
the direct non-prepositional or prepositional (in English) object. For
example: "He could make the money easy". (Snow). "I have heard of it..." (Ibid.)
Не went to Oxford, studied engineering and played rugger. (D. Garnett)
The simple object may be expressed in English and Russian by different
nominal parts of speech or their functional equivalents. Eg: He was describing
the sufferings of the unemployed (J. London)
Her laugh cut Soames to the quick. (Galsworthy). Fleur flung back her hair. (Ibid.)
Nelson had asked Mary'sfather's consent. (D. Garnett)
She called out "Hullo!" (Ibid.)
Note. The verbs to ask, to answer, to take, to envy, to hear, and to forgive
take two direct objects in English, which is not so in Russian. For example:
They scared him, (Johnny) and asked him many questions. (Saroyan)
In this sentence both pronouns, him and the word-group (extended object) many
questions are direct objects in English whereas in Russian the second object
him (йому) is indirect. Direct in both languages is also the cognate object, eg:
Taras Shevchenko lived a hard life. .. .Clare slept the sleep of one who has spent
a night in the car. (Galsworthy); Napoleon fought several successful battles.
The prepositional object in the contrasted languages, as has been pointed
out, is preceded/introduced by the preposition. For example: It smelt not of
vomit, but of food. (D. Garnett) She felt cold in nothing but her nightdress and
the light wrap, and with the shiver of cold she felt fear. (Ibid.)
"І must not panic", she said to herself. (Ibid.)
As can be observed, not all English prepositional objects have
prepositional equivalent in Russian (e.g.: it smelt not of vomit). Other
prepositional objects, however, are declinable in Russian (E.g.: with the
shiver of cold big) No morphological expression of the syntactic dependence is observed in the so-called addressee object (as termed by Prof. G.G.Pocheptsov) to herself which corresponds to the indirect object собі, though it may be conveyed as an indirect prepositional object as well. One more peculiar feature of the English prepositional object is that the preposition may sometimes be split from the object itself, e.g: …My car a 1960 Morrts Oxford... that I have been so proud of. (B. Hanville) Or in such an example: Who do they (children) belong to? (Maugham)
The indirect object in both languages has an indirect case form which is
expressed in English only by the personal pronoun in the objective case and by
the interrogative and relative pronoun who. Eg: I know they told me that. (Ibid.)
The doctor gave me pills to take tranquillisers. (Ibid.) Не handed her the paper. (Dreiser)
The Russian indirect object may also be a noun, any
pronoun or numeral.
Hence, all English notionals with no morphological expression of indirect case forms can be called "indirect objects" only conventionally. E.g.: I sent Ann a book/ I sent a book to/for Ann. He sent nobody anything. Such morphologically amorphous words as nobody, nothing and even nouns which do not reflect any
morphological category by their form can express their relations only through
their syntactically predetermined placement. Taking all this into consideration,
i.e. the absenсe of any morphological expression of indirect cases in almost all
English notionals (except the objective case form of the personal pronouns me,
him, her, them, us) and the relative/ interrogative pronoun whom, it would be
typologically more expedient to use also the term "complements" instead of the
tradition term "object".
Apart from the above-mentioned subtypes of the direct object in the
contrasted languages, two more structural forms of it are to be singled out.
These are: 1) the clausal object/expressed by the object subordinate clause:
"You're always telling me how good you are". (I. Shaw)
Or "I suppose she's been telling you that I'm a selfish brute."
(J. Сагу)
The formal object is an allomorphic feature/phenomenon pertained to the
English language only. This object is expressed by the formal pronoun it which
has an implicit meaning, as can be seen in the following sentences: On Saturday
she would clean it, wash it, and air it. (J.K. Jerome) which means in Russian
the following: І found it impossible to utter the next word. (Kahler) We can walk it very quickly.
The complex object is not a completely allomorphic feature for Russian
either, though some of its structural forms are alien to it. These are, for instance,
the objective with the infinitive, the objective with the present participle or the
gerundial complexes/constructions, which have nouns or subordinate clauses
for their equivalents in Russian. For example: "Oh! If I could only see him
laugh once more." (M. Twain) She had expected him to be more sympathetic.
(Ibid.) I heard someone weeping. (D. Greene) I hear him calling her name.
(Fitzgerald) "It's no good your flying in temper." (Maugham) Apart from these
there are some isomorphic or similar complexes, which are observed in both
languages. There are cases "like It would be better for us to leave him." (O.
Wilde) There was need for him to be economical.
These English complexes have structurally different equivalents in Russian: either the prepositional object or the direct object . In the
second sentence (for him to be economical) the equivalent is again different in
Russian: (prepositional object) and to be economical becomes an
attribute in Russian.
The term "inversion" has sometimes been used to denote an unusual
position of a secondary part of the sentence, that is, of an object or an adverbial
modifier. That, however, is undesirable, since it might lead to
misunderstandings and seriously hamper the study of word order. To illustrate
our point, let us compare the following two sentences: This he knew very well,
and, A pretty paradise did we build for ourselves. (Thackeray, quoted by
Poutsma) In both sentences the object stands at the beginning, which is not its
usual place. After this, in the first sentence, come the subject and the predicate
in their normal order for a declarative sentence, whereas in the second
sentence the predicate comes before the subject. It is natural to say that in the
first sentence there is no inversion, while in the second sentence there is one.
Now, if we were to use the term "inversion" for every case of the object
occupying an unusual place, we should have to say that in the first sentence also
there is inversion in some sense, which would certainly lead to confusion. We
will therefore not apply the term "inversion" to a secondary part of the
sentence.
It is well known that the usual place of the object is after the predicate, and
if there are two objects in a sentence, their order is fixed: if they are both nonprepositional, the indirect object comes first and the direct object next; if one
of the objects is prepositional, it comes after the non-prepositional. The
tendency to place the object immediately after the predicate verb should not
however be taken as an absolute law. Some other part of the sentence often
does come in between the predicate verb and its object.
This intervening phrase will probably in most cases be a loose part of the
sentence, as in the following extracts: At the age of eight Ferdinando was so large
and so exuberantly healthy that his parents decided, though reluctantly, to send
him to school. (Huxley) In the visitors' book at Crome Ivor had left, according to
his invariable custom in these cases, a poem. (Idem) In the former example the
phrase though reluctantly introduces some shade of meaning, weakening the
effect of the verb decided, and it could not conveniently come at any other place
in the sentence. In the latter example the rather extended phrase according to
his invariable custom in these cases might have come between the subject Ivor
and the predicate had left. The sentence would then run like this: In the visitors'
book at Crome Ivor, according to his invariable custom in these cases, had left a
poem. The effect of the original text, with the loose part separating the object
from the predicate, appears to be that of postponing the mention of the poem
and thus creating some tension since the words immediately following the
predicate fail to make clear what it was that he left in the visitors' book.
An object may also be separated from the predicate by several intervening
elements of the sentence. This is the case, for example, in the following passage:
He recognised suddenly in every face that passed him the reflection of what
appeared a similar, lonely, speechless concern not with the station and the
mechanics of arriving, departing, meeting someone, or saying good-bye, but with
something more vital still and far beneath such minor embassies. (Buechner)
Owing to the adverbial modifier suddenly and the prepositional object with the
attributive clause belonging to it, in every face that passed him, the direct object
the reflection (with the other parts of the sentence belonging to it) is at a
considerable distance from the predicate recognised. However, no
misunderstanding is to be feared here, as there is no other noun that might be
taken for the direct object in the main clause: the only noun that does come in
here is the noun face, but it is too obviously connected with the preposition in
that introduces it (along with its attribute every) to be taken for a direct object.
This example, and many others of a similar kind, show that the principle "the
object is bound to come immediately after the predicate verb" does not always
hold good.
Quite the same sort of thing is seen in our next example, taken from the
same novel: He seemed to see in each figure that hurried by a kind of indifference
to all but some secret, unexpressed care having little to do with their involving
context. (Buechner) Besides the role of rheme that belongs to the object in the
sentence, there is another factor which may have been responsible for the order
of words: the group centred around the object kind (or kind of indifference) is
rather long, and placing it immediately after the predicate, before the phrase in
each figure that hurried by, would result in a rather awkward rhythmical
pattern of the sentence.
A non-prepositional object can be separated from the predicate even by
two secondary parts, as in the following example: She arose and turned on a
lamp to read the letter again. He told and told well in it a little story. (Buechner)
Here both the adverbial modifier well and the prepositional object in it
intervene between the predicate and the non-prepositional object.
An object may also be separated from the predicate by a parenthesis and a
clause of time: She had seen, of course, when she spoke, only Tristram. (Buechner)
2. The attribute. The attribute in both languages functions as an adjunct to
a noun head in a word-group. The categorial meanings of English and RUSSIAN
adjuncts differ considerably, however, since English adjuncts can not express
gender, case and only rarely number as in the example with the demonstrative
pronouns this/that+Nsing - these/those + Nplur; such a + Nsing - such+ Nplur, many
a+ Nsing- many+ Nplur
Almost all Russian attributive adjuncts, however, mostly agree with the
head noun in gender, case, and number. These adjuncts are: adjectives,
numerals, pronouns, participles:
Each of these and other adjuncts has also case endings: хорошего дня, хорошим днем, (при) хорошем дне; моего брата, моему
брату, моим братом, моём брате; etc.
But there are some non-declinable adjuncts in Russian as well, e.g.:
Number 17 was on the second floor. (Christie) Номер 17 на третьем этаже. Similarly in: палата 17, у палаты 17, etc.
The adjunct "17" does not agree in gender (like in English) with its head
word "number"'/номер, палата № 17). There is also no syntactic agreement
in English, and sometimes in Russian (if there are the adverbial, infinitival
and some phrasal adjuncts), e.g.: George was the first to recover, the then
government, sugar cane production, a to-be-or-not-to-be question, the sentence
below, books to read, the House of Commons debate, etc. Similarly there is no
syntactic agreement of adverbial and infinitival adjuncts with their noun heads
in Russian either, e.g.: шаг налево, …..
Some adverbial adjuncts in English may be post-posed, eg: A voice inside
said. (Maugham) But: In the light of after events... (Fox).
Both in English and Russian prepositional adjuncts and adjunct clauses
are found, e.g.: There were only two houses of any importance in King's Abbot.
My friend of whom I spoke was a young man... (Christie) Біля шарабанів коні в
хомутах. (Головко) Мій приятель, про якого я казав... Isomorphic are also
noun adjuncts as in the sentence I heard Joanie's voice (Maugham)-
Characteristic of English only are adjuncts expressed by a)clusters of
nouns like sugar cane production; b) statives: Miss Ackroyd saw her uncle alive
at a quarter to ten. (Christie); c) gerund, gerundial phrase or consrtuction: "You
have not spoiled my pleasure in meeting you, Mr. Gray". (Wilde); d) of the
contextual adjuncts expressed by articles having a lexical meaning in the text:
The thought was fire in him. (London) "I want the Dorian Gray I used to paint..."
(Wilde)
The position of an attribute before or after its head word largely depends
on its morphological type. An attribute consisting of a prepositional phrase can
only come after its head word. As to adjectival attributes, their usual position is
before their head word, but in some cases they follow it. Let us consider a few
examples of this kind. Darkness impenetrable and immovable filled the room. (J.
Austen) It has been long noticed that adjectives with the -ble suffix are apt to
come after the noun they modify. This may be partly due to their semantic
peculiarity: they are verbal in character, expressing as they do the possibility
(or impossibility) for the person or thing denoted by the head word to undergo
the action denoted by the stem from which the adjective in -ble is derived (in
our example these stems are: penetr-, e.g.: the verb penetrate, and move
respectively). This should not be taken to mean that adjectives of this type are
bound to follow their head word, but the peculiarity of their meaning and
structure makes it possible for them to do so. Postposition also occurs in certain
stock phrases, such as from times immemorial, the best goods available, cousin
german, etc., which are specially studied in lexicology. Apart from these cases,
postposition of an attribute is possible in poetic diction and is a distinctive
stylistic feature. Compare, for example, Byron's lines: Adieu, adieu! my native
shore / Fades o'er the waters blue, or again, Enough, enough, my yeoman good, /
Thy grief let none gainsay. Nowhere but in poetry would such phrases with
postpositive attributes as the waters blue, or my yeoman good be possible.
An attribute expressed by an adverb (which does occur, though not too
often) may come before its head word. Thus, the adverb then used as an
attribute, as in the sentence She was of the tallest of women, and at her then age
of six-and-twenty... in the prime and fulness of her beauty (Thackeray) can only
be prepositive, and besides it always stands between the definite article and the
noun. It may be noted that the adverb then, when used in this manner, is an
opposite of the adjective present, which occupies a similar position in such
contexts as the present state of affairs.
3. The adverbial modifier. There are several ways of classifying adverbial
modifiers: (1) according to their meaning, (2) according to their morphological
peculiarities, (3) according to the type of their head word.
Of these, the classification according to meaning is not in itself a
grammatical classification. For instance, the difference between an adverbial
modifier of place and one of time is basically semantic and depends on the
lexical meaning of the words functioning as adverbial modifiers. However, this
classification may acquire some grammatical significance, especially when we
analyse word order in a sentence and one semantic type of adverbial modifier
proves to differ in this respect from another. Therefore the classification of
adverbial modifiers according to their meaning cannot be ignored by syntactic
theory.
Classification according to morphological peculiarities, i. e. according to
the parts of speech and to phrase patterns, is essential: it has also something to
do with word order, and stands in a certain relation to the classification
according to meaning.
Classification according to the element modified is the syntactic
classification proper. It is of course connected in some ways with the
classification according to meaning; for instance, an adverbial modifier can
modify a part of the sentence expressed by a verb only if the type of meaning of
the word (or phrase) acting as modifier is compatible with the meaning of a
verb, etc.
A complete classification of adverbial modifiers according to their
meaning, i. e. a list of all possible meanings they can have, is impossible to
achieve, and it would serve no useful purpose. A certain number of meanings
can be found quite easily, such as place, time, condition, manner of an action,
degree of a property, etc., but whatever list we may compile along these lines,
there are bound to be special cases which will not fit in. For instance, in the
sentence “I saw him at the concer”t it is hard to tell whether the adverbial
modifier at the concert expresses place or time.
As to the classification according to morphological peculiarities, it can
probably be made exhaustive, although some of the morphological types are
met with very seldom indeed.
The most usual morphological type seems to be the adverb. This is
testified, among other things, by the fact that the very term for this part of the
sentence is derived (in English, and also, for instance, in German) from the term
"adverb". In some grammar books the two notions are even mixed up.
Occasionally an author speaks of adverbs, where he obviously means adverbial
modifiers.
Another very frequent morphological type of adverbial modifier is the
phrase pattern "preposition + noun" (also the type "preposition + adjective +
noun" and other variations of this kind). This type of adverbial modifier is one
of those which are sometimes indistinguishable from objects, or rather where
the distinction between object and adverbial modifier is neutralised.
A noun without a preposition can also in certain circumstances be an
adverbial modifier. To distinguish it from an object, we take into account the
meanings of the words, namely the meaning of the verb functioning as
predicate, and that of the noun in question. It must be admitted, though, that
even this criterion will not yield quite definite results, and this means that the
decision will be arbitrary, that is, the distinction between the two secondary
parts is neutralised here, too. Let us consider, for instance, the function of the
noun hour in a sentence like They appointed an hour and in a sentence like They
waited an hour. Since the noun is the same in both cases, the distinction, if any,
can only be due to the meaning of the verb in its relation to that of the noun. In
the first sentence we will take the noun hour as an object –on the analogy of
many other nouns, which can also follow this particular verb (e. g. appoint a
director), and which can all be made the subject of this verb in a passive
construction (e. g. A director has been appointed). In the second sentence, things
are different, as the verb wait can only be followed by a very few nouns without
a preposition (e. g. Wait a minute), and a passive construction is impossible.
This appears to constitute an essential difference between the two.
A very frequent morphological type of adverbial modifier is the infinitive
or an infinitive phrase. This is especially true of the adverbial modifier of
purpose, which may be expressed by the infinitive preceded by the particle to
or the phrase in order to. However, we cannot say that every infinitive or
infinitive phrase acting as a secondary part of the sentence must necessarily be
an adverbial modifier of purpose, or indeed an adverbial modifier of any kind.
Let us compare the following two sentences: I wanted to read the
advertisement, and I stopped to read the advertisement. From a purely structural
point of view there would seem to be no difference between the two sentences.
It is the meanings of the verbs want and stop which lie at the bottom of the
difference. If we consider this experiment to be a grammatical proof we can say
that the difference in the functions of the infinitive in the two sentences is
grammatical. If we deny this the conclusion will be that the distinction between
the two secondary parts is neutralised here too.
There are also cases when the infinitive is an adverbial modifier, but not
one of purpose.: Denis woke up the next morning to find the sun shining, the sky
serene. (Huxley) It is clear from the lexical meanings of the words woke up and
find that the infinitive as adverbial modifier does not indicate the purpose of
the action but the circumstances that followed it (Denis woke up and found the
sun shining).
Roughly speaking, in summing up the relations between the semantic and
the morphological types of adverbial modifiers, we may say that some general
statements on their relations can be made: for example, an adverbial modifier
of place can never be expressed by an infinitive; an infinitive can express either
an adverbial modifier of purpose, or one of subsequent events, etc. No
straightforward law about correspondences between the two classifications is
possible.
An adverbial modifier cannot modify a part of the sentence expressed by a
non-verbal noun; in other words, a secondary part modifying a part expressed
by a noun cannot be an adverbial modifier.
The position of adverbial modifiers in the sentence is known to be
comparatively more free than that of other parts. However, there is some
difference here between types of modifiers. Those which are most closely
linked with the part of the sentence they modify are the ones that denote the
frequency or the property of an action. They come between the subject and the
predicate, or even inside the predicate if it consists of two words –an auxiliary
and a notional verb, or two elements of a compound predicate.
We cannot, however, say either that adverbial modifiers of these types
cannot stand elsewhere in the sentence, or that adverbial modifiers of other
types cannot occupy this position. Occasionally an adverbial modifier of
frequency will appear at the beginning of the sentence. Occasionally, on the
other hand, an adverbial modifier of another type appears between subject and
predicate: Catherine, for a few moments, was motionless with horror. (J. Austen)
Now Meiklejohn, with a last effort, kicked his opponent's legs from under him...
(Linklater). The more usual position of the adverbial modifiers of time and
place is, however, outside the group "subject + predicate + object",that is, either
before or after it. Which of the two variants is actually used depends on a
variety of factors, among which the rheme plays an important part. If the main
stress is to fall, for instance, on the adverbial modifier of time, i. e. if it contains
the main new thing to be conveyed, this adverbial modifier will have to come at
the end of the sentence, as in the following extract: "Only think, we crossed in
thirteen days! It takes your breath away." "We'll cross in less than ten days yet!"
(Fitch) If, on the other hand, the main thing to be conveyed is something else,
the adverbial modifier of time can come at the beginning of the sentence. It
would, however, be wrong to say that the adverbial modifier, when not bearing
sentence stress, must come at the beginning. It can come at the end in this case,
too, and it is for the intonation to show where the semantic centre of the
sentence lies. This may be seen in sentences of the following type: Fleda, with a
bright face, hesitated a moment. (H. James)
The position of adverbial modifiers of time and place has also to be studied
in the light of this general problem. An adverbial modifier can also occupy other
positions in the sentence; thus, the auxiliary do of the negative form can be
separated from the infinitive by a rather lengthy prepositional group acting as
a loose secondary part of the sentence, which is probably best classed as an
adverbial modifier of cause: He was perhaps the very last in a long line of people
whom Steitler at this time did not, for an equally long line of reasons, want to see,
but, half perversely, half idly, he turned his steps in the direction of his friend's
room. (Buechner) This may be counted among cases of "enclosure", with one