Теоретическая грамматика английского языка.


13. The structure of gram. Cat.
It’s a gr. concept proper. Gr. Cat. Is a whole system of gr. Forms
expressing a generalized gr. Func..
Gr.cat.: 1. gr. Feture – гр. признак (ex. suffix). 2. gr. Form. 3. Gr.
Paradigm. 4. Gr. Opp.
Synthetiacal, analytical – the feat.s expressing the form are gr.
Morphemes. Synth. Form is one-single word including the gr. Feat.. Ex.
Tables. Analyt. Form consists of 2 parts (word expressing the material
meaning & word exp. The feat.). Ex. Will go. 3 types of synth.forms:
1. built up by the change of root morpheme, vowel-interchange (man-men)
inner inflexion.
2. outer inflexion – table – tables.
3. suppletivity – I am, you are, bad-worse

14. Cat. of Number
The cat. of number is expressed by the opp. of the plural form of  the  noun
to its singular form. The semantic difference of the opp.al members  of  the
cat. of number in many linguistic works is treated trad.ly: the  meaning  of
the singular is interpreted as "1" & the meaning of the plural -  as  "many"
("more than 1"). As the trad. interpretation of the singular  &  the  plural
members does not work in many cases, recently the categorial meaning of  the
plural has been reconsidered & now it is interpreted as  the  denotation  of
"the potentially dismembering reflection of the structure of  the  referent"
(correspondingly, the categorial meaning of the singular is treated as  "the
non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent").
The categorial opp.  of  number  is  subjected  to  the  process  of  opp.al
reduction. Neutralization takes place when countable Ns begin  to  func.  as
Singularia Tantum Ns, denoting in such cases either abstract ideas  or  some
mass material, e.g. On my birthday we alw have goose; or when  countable  Ns
are used in the func. of the Absol. Plural: The board are not  unanimous  on
the ?. A styl.ally marked transposition  is  achieved  by  the  use  of  the
descriptive uncountable plural (The fruits of the toil are not alw  visible)
& the "repetition plural" (Car after car rushed past me).

15. Cat. of Case
The case meanings in Eng relate to 1  another  in  a  peculiar,  unknown  in
other lang.s, way: the common case is quite indiff. from the semantic  point
of view, while the genitive case func.s  as  a  subsidiary  element  in  the
morphological system of Eng be cause its semantics is also rendered  by  the
Common Case noun in prepositional collocations & in contact.
In the discussion of  the  case  probl.  4  main  views  advanced  by  diff.
scholars should  be  considered:  the  "theory  of  positional  cases",  the
"theory  of  prepositional  cases",  the  "limited  case  theory",   &   the
"postpositional theory". Acc. to the "theory of positional cases",  the  Eng
noun distinguishes the inflectional  genitive  case  &  4  non-inflectional,
purely positional, cases - Nominative,  Vocative,  Dative,  Accusative.  The
cardinal weak point of this theory lies in the fact that  it  mixes  up  the
func.al (syntactic) characteristics of the sent. parts &  the  morphological
feat.s of the noun.
The "theory of prepositional cases" regards  nounal  combinations  with  the
prepositions in certain object & attributive collocations  as  morphological
case forms: the Dative Case (to + N, for + N), the Genitive Case (of + N).
The "limited case theory" recognizes the existence in Eng of a limited  case
system whose members are the Genitive Case (a  strong  form)  &  the  Common
Case (a weak form).
The "postpositional theory" claims that the Eng noun in the  course  of  its
historical development has completely lost the morphological cat.  of  case;
that is why the trad. Genitive  Case  is  treated  by  its  advocates  as  a
combination of a noun with a particle.
Taking into account the advantages of the 2 theories  -  the  "limited  case
theory"  &  the  "postpositional  theory"  opens  new  perspectives  in  the
treatment of the cat. of case. It st&s to reason to regard the element -s  I
-es as a special case particle. Thus, acc. to  the  "particle  case  theory"
the 2-case system of the noun is to be recognized in Eng:  the  Common  Case
is a direct case, the Genitive Case is an oblique case.  As  the  case  opp.
does not work with all Ns, from the func.al point of view the Genitive  Case
is to be regarded as subsidiary to the  syntactic  system  of  prepositional
phrases.

16. Cat. of Gender
The probl. of gender in Eng is being vigorously disputed. Linguistic
scholars as a rule deny the existence of gender in Eng r as a gr. cat. &
stress its purely semantic character.' The actual gender distinctions of Ns
are not denied by any1; what is disputable is the character of the gender
class-tion: whether it is purely semantic or semantico-gr..
In fact, the cat. of gender in  Eng  is  expressed  with  the  help  of  the
obligatory correlation of Ns with the personal proNs of  the  third  person.
The third person proNs being specific & obligatory classifiers  of  Ns,  Eng
gender distinctions display their gr. nature.
The cat. of gender is based on 2 hierarchically arranged  opp.s:  the  upper
opp. is general, it func.s in the  whole  set  of  Ns;  the  lower  opp.  is
partial, it func.s in the subset of person Ns  only.  As  a  result  of  the
double opp.al correlation, in Modern Eng a  specific  system  of  3  genders
arises: the neuter, the masculine, & the feminine genders.
In Eng there are many person  Ns  capable  of  expressing  both  feminine  &
masculine genders by way of the pronominal correlation. These Ns comprise  a
group of the so-called "common' gender" Ns, e.g.: "person", "friend", etc.
In the plural all the gender  distinctions  are  neutralized  but  they  are
rendered obliquely through the correlation with the singular.
Alongside of the gr. (or lexico-gr.) gender distinctions, Eng  Ns  can  show
the sex of their referents also lexically with the help of  special  lexical
markers, e.g.:  bull-calf/cow-calf,  cock-sparrow/hen-sparrow,  he-bear/she-
bear, etc. or through suffixal derivation: sultan/sultana, lion/li1ss, etc.
The cat. of gender can undergo the process of opp.al reduction.  It  can  be
easily neutralized (with the group of "common  gender"  Ns)  &  transponized
(the process of "personification").
The Eng gender differs much from the Russian gender: the Eng  gender  has  a
semantic character (opp.ally, i.e. gr.ly expressed),  while  the  gender  in
Russian is partially semantic  (Russian  animate  Ns  have  semantic  gender
distinctions), & partially formal.

17. Cat. of Article Determination
The probl. of Eng articles has been the subject of hot discussions for  many
years. Today the most disputable ?s concerning the  system  of  articles  in
Eng are the following: the  identifiction  of  the  article  status  in  the
hierarchy of lang. units, the  nurriber  of  articles,  their  categorial  &
pragmatic func.s.
There exist 2 basic approaches to the probl.  of  the  article  status  some
scholars consider the article a self-sufficient word which  forms  with  the
modified noun a syntactic syntagma; others identify  the  article  with  the
morpheme-like element which builds up  with  the  nounal,  stem  a  specific
morph.
In recent works on the probl. of  article  determination  of  Eng  Ns,  more
often than not an opinion is expressed that in the hierarchy of lang.  units
the article occupies a peculiar place - the place intermediary btw the  word
& the morpheme.
In the light of the opp.al theory the cat. of article determination  of  the
noun is regarded as 1 which is based on 2 binary opp.s: 1 of them is  upper,
the other is lower. The opp. of the  higher  level  operates  in  the  whole
system of articles & contrasts the definite article with  the  noun  against
the 2 other forms of article determination of  the  noun  -  the  indefinite
article & the meaningful absence of the  article.  The  opp.  of  the  lower
level operates within the sphere of realizing the categorial meaning of non-
identification (the  sphere  of  the  weak  member  of  the  upper  opp.)  &
contrasts the 2 types of generalization - the relat.  generalization  &  the
absol. generalization. As a  result,  the  system  of  articles  in  Eng  is
described as 1  consisting  of  3  articles  -  the  definite  article,  the
indefinite article, & the 0 article,  which,  correspondingly,  express  the
categorial func.s (meanings) of  identification,  relat.  generalization,  &
absol. generalization.
The article paradigm is generalized for the whole system of  the  common  Ns
in Eng & is transpositionally outstretched into the subsystems of proper  Ns
& Unica (unique Ns) as well as into the system of proNs.

18. Non-finite forms of the V
Non-finite forms of the V (Vids) are the forms of the V which have feat.s
intermediary btw the V & the non-processual parts of spee4. They perform
mixed, Val & non-Val, syntactic func.s. They are: inf-ve, gerund, pres.
participle, past participle.
The inf-ve combines the properties of the V with those of the  noun,  as  a
result it serves as the Val name of a process. By  virtue  of  its  general
process-naming func., the inf-ve should be considered as the  head-form  of
the whole paradigm of the V. The inf-ve has a  dual,  V-type  &  noun-type,
valency. The inf-ve has 3 gr. cat.: the aspective cat. of development  (the
opp.  of  Continuous  &  Non-Continuous  forms),  the  aspective  cat.   of
retrospective coordination (the opp. of Perf. & Non-Perf. forms), the  cat.
of voice (the opp. of Pass. & Non-Pass. forms). Conseq-ly,  the  categorial
paradigm of  the  inf-ve  of  the  objective  V  incl.s  eight  forms:  the
Indefinite Act., the Continuous Act., the Perf. Act., the Perf.  Continuous
Act.; the Indefinite Pass., the Continuous  Pass.,  the  Perf.  Pass.,  the
Perf. Continuous  Pass..  The  inf-ve  paradigm  of  the  non-objective  V,
correspondingly, incl.s 4 forms.
The gerund, like the infinitive, combines  the  properties  of  the-V  with
those of the noun & gives the process the  Val  name.  In  comp.  with  the
infinitive the gerund reveals stronger substantive properties.  Namely,  as
diff. from the infinitive, &  similar  to  the  noun,  the  gerund  can  be
modified by a noun in the possessive case  or  its  pronominal  equivalents
(expressing the subject of  the  Val  process),  &  it  can  be  used  with
prepositions.
The combinability of the gerund is dual: it has a  mixed,  V-type  &  noun-
type, valency. Like the  infinitive,  the  gerund  performs  the  syntactic
func.s of the subject, the object, the  predicative,  the  attrib.,  &  the
adVial modifier.  The  gerund  has  2  gr.  cat.:  the  aspective  cat.  of
retrospective coordination & the cat. of voice. Conseq-ly,  the  categorial
paradigm of the gerund of the objective V includes four forms:  the  Simple
Active, the Perf. Active, the Simple Passive, the Perf.  Passive.  The  ge-
rundial paradigm of the non-objective V, correspondingly, includes 2 forms.
The pres. participle serves as a qualifying-processual  name.  It  combines
the properties of the V with those of the adjective & adV.
The pres. participle has 2 cat.: the cat. of  retrospective  coordination  &
the cat. of voice. The triple nature  of  the  pres.  participle  finds  its
expression in its mixed (V-type, adjective-type,  adV-type)  valency  &  its
syntactic func.s (those of  the  predicative,  the  attrib.,  &  the  adVial
modifier).
The pres. participle,  similar  to  the  infinitive,  can  build  up  semi-
predicative complexes of objective & subjective types.
The past participle combines the properties of the  V  with  those  of  the
adjective. The categorial meaning of the past participle is qualifying:  it
gives  some  sort  of  qualification  to  the  denoted  process.  The  past
participle has no paradigmatic forms; by way  of  paradigmatic  correlation
with the pres. participle, it conveys implicitly the categorial meanings of
the perf. & the passive. Its valency is not specific; its typical syntactic
func.s are those of the attrib. & the predicative.
Like the pres. participle, the past participle is capable of making up semi-
predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject,  as  well  as
absolute complexes.
The consideration of the English Vids in their mutual  comp.,  supported  &
supplemented by comparing them with their nonVal  counterparts,  reveals  a
peculiar character of their correlation.
The correlation of the infinitive, the gerund, & the Val noun, being of  an
indisputably systemic nature & covering a vast proportion of  the  lexicon,
makes up a special lexico-gr. cat. of processual repres.ation. The 3 stages
of this cat. repres. the  referential  processual  entity  of  the  lexemic
series, respectively, as dynamic  (the  infinitive  &  its  phrase),  semi-
dynamic (the gerund & its phrase), & static (the Val noun  &  its  phrase).
The cat. of processual repres.ation underlies the predicative diff. between
various  situation-naming  constructions  in  the   sphere   of   syntactic
nominalization.

19. Cat. of Tense.
The cat. of tense is considered to be an immanent gr. Cat. which means that
the finite V form alw expresses time distinctions.
The cat. of tense finds diff. interpretations with diff. scholars. Thus,  in
trad. linguistics gr. time is often repres.ed as a  3-form  cat.  consisting
of the "linear" past, pres., & future  forms.  The  future-in-the-past  does
not find its place in the scheme based on the linear principle, hence,  this
system is considered to be deficient, not covering all lingual data.
At the same time linguists build up new systems of tenses in order  to  find
a suitable place in them for future-in-the past. Nevertheless, many of  such
schemes are open to  criticism  for  their  inconsistency  which  finds  its
expression in the fact that some of them  deny  the  independent  status  of
future tenses while others  exclude  from  the  analysis  future-in-the-past
forms.
The said inconsistency can be overcome if we accept the  idea  that  in  Eng
there exist 2 tense cat..
The 1st cat. - the cat. of primary time - expresses a  direct  retrospective
evaluation of the time of the process denoted,  due  to  which  the  process
receives an absolutive time characteristic. This  cat.  is  based  upon  the
opp. of "the past tense" & "the pres.  tense",  the  past  tense  being  its
strong member.
The 2nd tense cat. is the cat. of "prospective time", it is based  upon  the
opp. of "after-action" & "non-after-action", the  marked  member  being  the
future tense. The cat. of prospect is relat. by nature which means  that  it
characterizes the action from the point of  view  of  its  correlation  with
some other action. As the future Val form may be relat. either to the  pres.
time, or to the past time incl.d in non-future, the Eng V acquires  2  diff.
future forms: the future of the pres. & the future of  the  past.  It  means
that the future of the past is doubly strong expressing the  strong  members
of the cat. of primary time & the cat. of prospect.
The cat. of primary time is subjected  to  neutralization  &  transposition,
transposition being more typical. The vivid cases of transposition  are  the
"historical pres." &  the  "Preterite  of  Modesty".  As  for  the  cat.  of
prospect, it is  often  neutralized;  neutralization  can  be  of  2  types:
syntactically optional & syntactically obligatory.

20. Cat. of Aspect
Gr. aspective meanings form a variable gr. cat. which is trad.ly  associated
with the opp. of continuous & non-continuous forms of  the  V.  Yet,  1  can
find a great divergence of opinions on the probl. of  the  Eng  aspect.  The
main difference lies in the interpretation of the  categorial  semantics  of
the opp.al members - continuous & indefinite forms: the  categorial  meaning
of the continuous form is usually defined as the meaning of duration,  while
the interpretation of  the  categorial  semantics  of  the  Indefinite  form
causes controversy (the indefinite form may  be  interpreted  as  having  no
aspective meaning (I.P. Ivanova), as a form having  a  vague  content  (G.N.
Vorontsova), as a form stressing the fact of the performance of  the  action
(A.I. Smirnitsky). In Modern Linguistics  A.I.  Smirnitsky's  interpretation
of the categorial semantics of the indefinite form is widely accepted.
In theoretical gr-ar the interpretation of perf. /  non-perf.  V-forms  also
refers to disputable ?s. Some linguists interpret the opp. of perf.  /  non-
perf. forms as aspective (O.  Jespersen,  I.P.  Ivanova,  G.N.  Vorontsova),
others - as the opp. of tense forms (H. Sweet,  G.O.  Curme,  A.  Korsakov).
A.I. Smirnitsky was the 1st to prove  that  perf.  &  non-perf.  make  up  a
special,  self-sufficient,  cat.  which  he  called  the   "cat.   of   time
correlation"; this viewpoint is shared now by a vast majority of linguists.
Developing A.I. Smirnitsky's views on the categorial semantics  of  perf.  /
non-perf. forms, we can come to the conclusion that in  Eng  there  exist  2
aspective cat.: the cat. of development (based on the opp. of  continuous  &
non-continuous forms) & the cat. of  retrospective  coordination  (based  on
the opp. of perf. & non-perf. forms).
The  perf.  form  has  a  mixed  categorial  meaning:  it   expresses   both
retrospective time coordination of the process & the connexion of the  prior
action with a time-limit reflected in a subsequent  event.  The  recognition
of the 2 aspect cat. also enables 1 to give a sound  interpretation  to  the
perf. continuous forms: they must be treated as forms having marks  in  both
the aspect cat..
The  opp.  of  continuous  &  non-continuous  forms  can  be  neutralized  &
transponized. Besides, in the cat. of development Vs which are  usually  not
used in continuous  forms  can  be  subjected  to  the  process  of  reverse
transposition, e.g.: Were you wanting my help?
As for the opp. of perf. & non-perf. forms, it can undergo only the  process
of neutralization, transposition being alien to it.

21. Cat. of Mood
A great divergence of opinions on the ? of the cat. of  mood  is  caused  by
the fact that identical mood forms can express diff. meanings & diff.  forms
can express similar meanings.
The cat. of mood shows the relation of the nominative content of  the  sent.
towards reality. By this cat. the action can be pres.ed as  real,  non-real,
desirable, recommended, etc.
It is obvious that the opp. of the 1 integral form of the indicative  &  the
1 integral form of the subj-ve underlies the unity of the  whole  system  of
Eng moods. The formal mark of this opp. is  the  tense-retrospect  shift  in
the subj-ve, the latter being the strong  member  of  the  opp..  The  shift
consists in the perf. aspect being  opposed  to  the  imperf.  aspect,  both
turned into the relat. substitutes for the absolutive past  &  pres.  tenses
of the indicative.
The study of the Eng mood reveals a certain  correlation  of  its  formal  &
semantic feat.s. The subj-ve, the integral mood of unreality, pres.s  the  2
sets of forms acc. to the structural division of Val tenses into  the  pres.
&  the  past.  These  form-sets  constitute  the  2  corresponding   func.al
subsystems of the subj-ve, namely, the spective, the mood  of  attitudes,  &
the conditional, the mood  of  appraising  causal-conditional  relations  of
processes. Each of these, in its turn, falls into  2  systemic  subsets,  so
that at the immed-ly  working level of pres.ation  we  have  the  4  subj-ve
form-types identified on the basis  of  the  strict  correlation  btw  their
structure &  their  func.:  the  pure  spective,  the  modal  spective,  the
stipulative conditional, the consective conditional:
Pure Spective (Subj-ve 1) consideration, desideration, inducement
Stipulative Conditional (Subj-ve 2) unreal condition
Consective Conditional (Subj-ve 3) unreal consequence
Modal Spective (Subj-ve 4) consideration, desideration, inducement
The elaborated scheme clearly shows that  the  so-called  "imperative  mood"
has historically coincided with Subj-ve 1.
The described system is not finished in terms of the historical  development
of lang.; on the contrary, it is in  the  state  of  making  &  change.  Its
actual  manifestations  are  complicated  by  neutralizations  of  formal  &
semantic contrasts, by fluctuating uses of the auxiliaries,  of  the  finite
"be" in the singular.

22. The sent. as a syntactic unit.
The sent. is the immediate integral unit of spee4 built up of words acc.  to
a definite syntactic pattern & distinguished by contextually relevant  comm-
tive  purpose.  Any  coherent  connexion  of  words  having  an  informative
destination is effected within the frame work of sent.. Therefore the  sent.
idis the main object of syntax. The sent., being composed of  word,  may  in
certain  cases  include  one  word  of  various  lexico-gram.  st&ings.  Ex.
Congratulations!  The  actual  existence  of  one-word   sent.s   does   not
contradict the general idea of a sent. as a  special  syntactic  combination
of words. The sent. is a predicative  utterance  unit.  It  means  that  the
sent. not only names some referents with the help of its  word-constituents,
but also, 1st presents these referents as making up a certain  situation  (a
situational event) & 2nd reflects the connexion btw the  nominal  denotation
of the event & objective reality showing the time of the  event,  its  being
real or unreal, desirable or undes., etc. There is a diff. btw the  sent.  &
the word. Unlike the word, the sent. does not exist in  the  system  of  the
lang. as a ready-made unit. It is created by the speaker in  the  course  of
commun-tion. Trad. gr. has never regarded the sent. as part  of  the  system
of means of  expression;  It  has  alw  interpreted  the  sent.  not  as  an
implement for constructing spee4, but as  spee4  itself.  Being  a  unit  of
spee4, the sent is intonationally delimited. Intonation separates one  sent.
from another in the  continual  flow  of  uttered  segments.  The  sent.  is
characterized by its specific category of predication which establishes  the
relation of the named phenomena to actual life. As for  predication  proper,
it embodies syntactic modality as the fundamental feature of  the  sent.  It
is the feature of predication that identifies the sent. as  opposed  to  any
other combination of words having a  situational  referent.  The  centre  of
predication in a sent. of Val type is a finite V.  The  finite  V  expresses
essential predicative meanings by its  categorical  forms.  The  sent  as  a
lingual  unit  performs  2  essential  signemic  (meaningful)  func.s:   1st
substance-naming (nomin-ve func.),  2nd  –  reality-evaluating  (predicative
func.).

23. The phrase, its relation to the word & the sent.
The phrase is the object of minor syntax. The phrase is  usually  understood
as a combination of 2 or more words which is  a  gr.  unit  but  is  not  an
analytical form of a word. Nominal phrase – a compound  signemic  unit  made
up of words & denoting a complex phenomenon of reality analyzable  into  its
component elements together with  various  relations  btw  them.  The  trad.
class-tion of phrases is based on the part of spee4  status  of  the  phrase
constituents. In accordance with this  criterion,  the  following  types  of
phrases can be identified: "noun + noun", "adjective + noun",  "V  +  noun",
"V + adV", "adV + adjective", "adV + adV", etc.  Phrases  are  made  up  not
only by notional words but also  by  func.al  words,  e.g.:  "in  accordance
with", "due to", "apart from", "as soon as" -  such  phrases  perform  in  a
sent. preposition-like & conjunction-like  func.s.  Syntactic  relations  of
the  phrase  constituents  are  divided  into  2  main  types:  agreement  &
government. Agreement takes place when  the  subord.  word  assumes  a  form
similar to that of the word to which it is subord.. In English agreement  is
typical  only  of  the  category  of  number  in   demonstrative   pronouns.
Government takes place when the subord. word  is  used  in  a  certain  form
required by its head word, the form of the subord. word not coinciding  with
the form of the head word. The expression of government is the  use  of  the
objective case of personal pronouns & of the pronoun  "who"  when  they  are
used in  a  Val  phrase  or  follow  a  preposition.  Phrases  can  also  be
classified according to the nominative value of  their  constituents.  As  a
result three major types of phrases are identified: notional (consisting  of
grammatically connected notional words), formative (made up  by  notional  &
func.al words), & func.al (consisting  of  func.al  words  alone).  Notional
phrases are subdivided into 2 groups on the  principle  of  the  constituent
rank: equipotent phrases (the phrase constituents are of an  equal  rank)  &
dominational phrases (the syntactic ranks of the constituents are not  equal
as they refer to one another  as  the  modifier  &  the  modified).  Further
subdivision of  equipotent  notional  word  groupings  into  coordinative  &
cumulative is carried out on the principle of the  character  of  nomination
realized by the phrase constituents: coordinative phrases are based  on  the
logically consecutive connexions, cumulative phrases  are  characterized  by
the constituent inequality in the character of  nomination  realized  &  the
presence  of  a  coordinative  conjunction.  In  their  turn,   dominational
notional phrases are subdivided into consecutive &  cumulative:  the  class-
tion principle of  the  character  of  nomination  realized  by  the  phrase
constituents remains  valid.  Dominational  consecutive  phrases  fall  into
minor  groupings  according  to  the  specific  features   of   dominational
connexion.
24. Actual division of the sent.
The actual division  of  the  sent.  exposes  its  informative  perspective
showing what immediate semantic contribution the sent. parts make to  total
inf-tion conveyed by the sent.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  actual
division the sent. can be divided  into  2  sections:  thematic  (theme)  &
rhematic (rheme). The theme expresses the starting point of  communication;
it means that it denotes an object or a  phenomenon  about  which  smth  is
reported.  The  rheme  expresses  the  basic  informative   part   of   the
communication, emphasizing its contextually relevant  centre.  Between  the
theme & the rheme intermediary, transitional parts of the  actual  division
can be placed, also known under the term "transition".  Transitional  parts
of the sent. are characterized by diff. degrees of their informative value.
The theory of actual division has proved fruitful in the study of the comm-
tive properties of sent.s. In particular, it  has  been  demonstrated  that
each comm-tive type is distinguished by features which are revealed first &
foremost in the nature of the rheme. As  a  declarative  sent.  immediately
expresses a proposition, its actual division pattern has a  complete  form,
its rheme making up the centre of some statement. As  an  imperative  sent.
does  not  directly  express  a  proposition,  its  rheme  represents   the
informative nucleus not of an explicit proposition, but of an inducement in
which the  thematic  subject  is  usually  zeroed.  If  the  inducement  is
emphatically addressed to the listener, or to the speaker  himself,  or  to
the third person, thematic subjects have an explicit form.
The diff.ial feature of the actual  division  pattern  of  an  interrogative
sent. is determined by the fact that its rheme is inf-tionally open because
this type of sent. expresses an inquiry about inf-tion  which  the  speaker
does not possess. The function of  the  rheme  in  an  interrogative  sent.
consists in marking  the  rhematic  position  in  a  response  sent.,  thus
programming its content. Diff. types of   ?s  are  characterized  by  diff.
types of rhemes.
The analysis of the actual division of comm-tive sent. types gives an  add-
al proof of the "non-comm-tive" nature of the so-called purely  exclamatory
sent.s (e.g. "Oh, I say!"): it shows that interjectional utterances of  the
type  don't  make  up  grammatically  predicated  sent.s  with  their   own
informative perspective; in  other  words,  they  remain  mere  signals  of
emotions.
1 2 3