Word order and actual division of sentences. Actual division of the sentence in English

Some phrases and phrases mean not at all what would come from the simple addition of used words. Why the same sentence can be understood in different ways, if you rearrange the semantic stress from one word to another? If the sentence is in the context, then the words surrounding it usually give explanations that help not to be mistaken. But sometimes it is very difficult to make a correct conclusion. In addition, this greatly complicates the perception of information, because it takes too much effort to arrange the pieces of sentences and phrases in places. Taking into account the problems of explanation and perception, it is important to divide the syntactic and actual division of the sentence.

If you do not understand on the move, which member of the proposal is the main and which is the dependent, and what the speaker is making a statement, based on already known facts, and what he wants to present as unique information - there will not be a quick reading or a standing dialogue with Interlocutor. Therefore, in the presentation it is better to harmonize your words with some rules and established norms that are inherent in the language used. Reasoning in the opposite direction, the process of assimilation will be easier if you become acquainted with the principles of the logical formation of sentences and the most common cases of use.

Syntax and semantics

We can say that the actual division of sentences - this is the logical connection and emphasis, or rather, their explanation or detection. Misunderstandings often arise when communicating even in their native language, and if it concerns operations with a foreign language, in addition to the standard problems, it is necessary to take into account differences in culture. In various languages, one or another order of words is traditionally prevalent and the actual division of the sentence must take into account cultural characteristics.

If one thinks in broad categories, all languages can be divided into two groups: synthetic and analytical. In synthetic languages, many parts of speech have several word forms that reflect the individual characteristics of an object, phenomenon, or action relative to what is happening. For nouns this, for example, is the meaning of gender, person, number and case; For verbs such indicators are times, declination, inclination, conjugation, perfection, etc. Each word has an ending or suffix (and sometimes even changes in the root) corresponding to the function being performed, which allows the morphemes to respond to the climate changing in the offer. The Russian language is synthetic, because in it the logic and syntax of phrases rely heavily on the variability of morphemes, and combinations are possible in absolutely any order.

There are also isolated languages in which only one form corresponds to each word, and the meaning of the utterance can only be conveyed through the means of expressing the actual division of the sentence as the correct combination and order of words. If you rearrange parts of the sentence in places, the meaning can drastically change, because the direct links between the elements are broken. In analytical languages, parts of speech can have word forms, but their number is usually much lower than in synthetic ones. Here there is some compromise between the unchangeability of words, rigidly fixed order of words and flexibility, mobility, mutuality.

Word - phrase - sentence - text - culture

Actual and grammatical division of the sentence implies that practically the language has two sides - first, the semantic load, that is, the logical structure, and secondly - the actual mapping, that is, the syntactic structure. This applies equally to elements of different levels - to individual words, phrases, phrases, sentences, the context of sentences, to the text as a whole and to its context. The semantic load is of primary importance - for it is obvious that, by and large, this is the only goal of the language. However, the actual mapping can not exist separately, because, in turn, its sole purpose is to ensure a correct and unambiguous transmission of the semantic load. The most famous example? "You can not pardon execution." In the English version, it may sound like this: "Execution is unacceptable then obviation" ("Execution, is unacceptable then obviation", "Execution is unacceptable then, obviation"). For a correct understanding of this instruction, it is necessary to determine whether the group "execute", "can not be pardoned" or the group "can not be executed", "pardoned" are actual members.

In this situation it is impossible to make a conclusion without syntactic instructions for that - that is, without a comma or any other punctuation mark. This is true for the existing order of words, but if the sentence looked like "you can not execute pardon," the corresponding conclusion could have been made based on their location. Then the "execution" would be a direct indication, and "can not be pardoned" - a separate statement, because the ambiguity of the position of the word "impossible" would disappear.

Theme, rema and units of division

The actual division of sentences involves the separation of the syntactic structure into logical components. They can be either members of a sentence, or blocks of closely-knit words. Usually terms such as subject, rema, and unit of terminology are used to describe the means of the actual division of the sentence. The subject is already known information, or the background part of the message. Rema is the part to which the emphasis is placed. It contains in itself fundamentally important information, without which the proposal would lose its purpose. In Russian, REMA, as a rule, is at the end of the sentence. Although this is not unambiguous, in fact, REMA can be located anywhere. Nevertheless, when the rheum is located, for example, at the very beginning of a sentence, the surrounding phrases usually contain either a stylistic or semantic indication of it.

A correct definition of a theme and a rema helps to understand the essence of the text. Units of division are words, or indivisible by the meaning of the phrase. Elements that complement the picture details. Their recognition is necessary to perceive the text not by word of mouth, but through logical combinations.

"Logical" subject and "logical" addition

In the sentence there is always a group of subject and a group of predicate. The subject group explains who performs the action, or who describes the predicate (if the predicate expresses the state). The group of the predicate speaks of what the subject does, or in one way or another reveals its nature. Also there is an addition that is attached to the predicate - it points to an object or living object, to which the subject's action passes. And it is not always easy to understand what is the subject, and what is the addition. The subject in the passive voice is a logical addition - that is, the object over which the action is performed. And the addition takes the form of a logical agent - that is, one who performs the action. The actual division of the sentence in the English language distinguishes three criteria by which it can be verified that there is a subject and what is an addition. First, the subject is always consistent with the verb in person and number. Secondly, it usually takes a position in front of the verb, and the addition - after. Thirdly, it carries the semantic role of the subject. But if reality contradicts some of these criteria, then first of all, consistency with the verb group is taken into account. In this case, the addition is called a "logical" subject, and the subject is, respectively, a "logical addition".

Disputes over the composition of the predicate group

Also, the actual division of the sentence gives rise to many disputes about the fact that it is the verb itself, or the verb and related additions, that are considered to be a group of the predicate. This is complicated by the fact that there is sometimes no clear boundary between them. In modern linguistics it is considered that the predicate, depending on the grammatical scheme of the sentence, is either the verb itself (main verb), or the verb itself with the auxiliary and modal verbs (modal verbs and auxiliaries), or the verb-bunch and the nominal part of the compound predicate , And the rest is not included in the group.

Inversions, idioms and inversions as idioms

The thought that our statement must convey is always concentrated at a certain point. The actual division of the sentence is intended to recognize that this point is the peak and attention must be paid to it. If the accent is spaced incorrectly, misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the idea may occur. Of course, in the language there are certain grammatical rules, however, they describe only the general principles of the formation of structures and are used for the template construction. When it comes to the logical arrangement of accents, we often have to change the structure of the statement, even if it contradicts the laws of education. And many of these syntactic deviations from the norm have acquired the status of "official". That is, they are entrenched in the language, and are actively used in normative speech. Similar phenomena occur when they free the author from resorting to more complex and excessively cumbersome constructions, and when the objective sufficiently substantiates the means. As a result, speech is enriched by expressiveness and becomes more diverse.

Some idiomatic turns could not be conveyed as part of the standard operation of the members of the proposals. For example, the actual division of the sentence in English takes into account such a phenomenon as the inversion of the sentence members. Depending on the expected effect, it is achieved in many ways. In a general sense, inversion means moving members to an uncharacteristic place. As a rule, the subject and predicate become participants in inversions. Their usual order is the subject, then the predicate, then the addition and circumstance. In fact, interrogative constructions are also inversions in a sense: part of the predicate is transferred forward of the subject. As a rule, a non-sense part of it is transferred, which can be expressed by a modal or auxiliary verb. Inversion here serves all the same purpose - to make a semantic emphasis on a particular word (group of words), to draw the attention of the reader / listener to a certain detail of the statement, to show that this sentence differs from the statement. It's just that these transformations have existed so long ago, they have become so naturally used and so universally applied that we no longer treat them as something out of the ordinary.

Rematic selection of secondary members

In addition to the usual inversion, the subject-predicate, there can be observed bringing to the forefront of any member of the sentence-definitions, circumstances or additions. Sometimes it looks quite natural and is provided by the syntactic structure of the language, and sometimes serves as an indicator of the change of the semantic role, and entails a rearrangement of the remaining participants in the phrase. The actual division of the sentence in English suggests that if the author needs to emphasize a detail, he puts it first, if intonationally it can not be distinguished, or if it is possible to isolate it, but under certain conditions ambiguity may arise. Or if the author simply lacks the effect, which can be obtained by intonation selection. In this case, often in a grammatical basis, too, there are permutations of the object and action.

Order of words

To talk about various kinds of inversions as a means of distinguishing one or another part of a sentence, one must consider the standard word order and the actual division of the sentence with a typical, template approach. Since members often consist of several words, and their meaning should be understood only in aggregate, it will also be necessary to note how composite members are formed.

In the standard scenario, the subject always goes before the predicate. It can be expressed by a noun or pronoun in the general case, gerund, infinitive, and subordinate clause. The predicate is expressed through the verb in the form of the actual infinitive; Through a verb that does not carry a particular meaning in itself with the addition of a semantic verb; Through an auxiliary verb and a nominal part, usually represented by a noun in the common case, a pronoun in the objective case, or an adjective. As an auxiliary verb , a verb-ligament, or a modal verb, can act. The nominal part can also be expressed equally by other parts of speech and phrases.

Cumulative meanings of phrases

The theory of the actual division of the sentence suggests that the unit of division, correctly defined, helps to reliably learn what is said in the text. In combinations, words can acquire a new, uncharacteristic, or not entirely separate meaning. For example, prepositions often change the content of a verb, they give it many different meanings, up to the opposite. Definitions, in the quality of which completely different parts of speech may appear, and even subordinate clauses, specify the meaning of the word to which they are attached. Specification, as a rule, limits the range of properties of an object or phenomenon, and distinguishes it from the mass of its like. In such cases, the actual division of sentences must be done carefully and carefully, for sometimes the links are so twisted and erased by the time that associating an object with a class, relying only on a part of the phrase, significantly distances us from the factual essence.

The unit of division can be called such a fragment of the text, which without loss of contextual links can be determined with the help of hermeneutics - that is, which, acting as a whole, can be paraphrased or translated. Its meaning can deepen, in particular, or be located on a more superficial level, but not deviate from its direction. For example, if we talk about upward movement, then it should remain a movement upwards. The nature of the action, including physical and stylistic features, is preserved, but there is still freedom in interpreting the details-which, of course, it is better to use to maximally approximate the resulting variant to the original one, to reveal its potential.

Searching for logic in context

The difference in syntactic and logical division is the following: from the point of view of grammar, the most important member of the sentence is the subject. In particular, the actual division of the sentence in the Russian language is based on this assertion. Although, from the standpoint of some modern linguistic theories, such is the predicate. Therefore, we take a generalized position, and say that the main term is one of the components of the grammatical basis. When from the point of view of logic the central figure can turn out to be absolutely any member.

The concept of the actual division of the sentence implies, under the main figure, that this element is a key source of information, a word or phrase that, in fact, prompted the author to speak (write). It is also possible to conduct more extensive connections and parallels if one takes the utterance in context. As we know, grammatical rules in English regulate that the sentence must necessarily contain both a subject and a predicate. If there is no possibility or need to use the present subject, then the formal subject is used, which is present in the grammatical basis as an indefinite pronoun, for example - "It" or "there". However, proposals are often coordinated with neighboring ones and included in the overall concept of the text. Thus, it turns out that members can be omitted, even such important ones as the subject or predicate, which are irrational for the overall picture. In this case, the actual division of sentences is possible only outside the points and exclamation marks, and the acceptor is forced to go for clarification in the surrounding neighborhood - that is, in the context. And in English there are examples where even in the context there is no tendency to disclose these members.

In addition to particular cases of use in narratives, in an orderly manner, such manipulations are concerned with the indicative sentences (Imperatives) and exclamations. The actual division of a simple sentence does not always happen easier than in complex constructions, because members are often omitted. In exclamations in general can be left only one single word, often an interjection or a particle. And in this case, in order to correctly interpret the utterance, one must turn to the cultural peculiarities of the language.