Modern English Grammar

Or else we will say that there is no theme at all here, that the whole of the sentence represents the rheme, or perhaps that the whole division into theme and rheme cannot be applied here. Though both views are plausible the first seems preferable. We will prefer to say that Jennie represents the theme, and emphasise that the theme in this case is not something already familiar but the starting point of the sentence.

ONE-MEMBER SENTENCES

The grammatical organisation of one-member sentences has its own traits. Such patterns should naturally be distinguished from two-member sentences with either the subject or the predicate omitted as the case is with ellipsis in sentence-structure.

Synsemantic in character, one-member sentences cover a wide and most varied range of meanings. The context, linguistic or situational, is generally explicit enough to make the grammatical content of the sentence clear.

One-member sentences have no separate subject and predicate but one "main" only instead.

It seems reasonable to make distinction between a) nominal or "naming" sentences and b) infinitival sentences.

Nominal sentences name a person or thing. They are fairly common in direct address, m so-called "word-representations" used to call up the image of the object in the mind of the readers or the person spoken to.

Examples, easily multiplied, are the following:

"Have you noticed Box I -- the lady in white satin with the green lace shawl?"

"Yes". Berenice raised her glasses.

"Mrs, Frank Algernon Cowperwood, the wife of the Chicago millionaire. (Dreiser)

The modal meaning of appraisal in one-member sentences is to a considerable extent connected with the use of noun determiners, the definite article, in particular. Both the article and the demonstrative pronoun have here special connotation. Consider the following examples:

The restless, inhuman, and yet so human, angry sadness of the creature's eyes! (Galsworthy)

That fellow Wagner had ruined everything; no melody left, not any voices to sing it. Ah! the wonderful singers! (Galsworthy)

"That woman!" said Soames. (Galsworthy)

Here again, like in many other cases, the subtle shares of modal force and emotional colouring are made clear by the context, linguistic or situational.

The attribute is often expressed by the of-phrase, e. g.:

Would Mr. Mont convince him? Tony was sharp! Her head drooped. The unfairness of it all! Some had everything to their hand, like that pretty wife of Mr. Mont's. (Galsworthy)

Don't talk to me about the country. The doctor said I was to go there for six weeks last summer. It nearly killed me, I give you my word. The noise of it! (Maugham)

She could think of him now with indifference. She loved him no longer. Oh, the relief and the sense of humiliation! (Maugham)

Oh, the shame of this day! You'll be comin' home with me now. (Dreiser)

If the head-word is a concrete noun the latter is very often used without attributive adjuncts. Sentences of this type are fairly common.

"What a picture", cried the ladies". "Oh, the ducks! Oh, the lambs! Oh, the sweets! Oh, the pets!" (Mansfield)

Such emotionally coloured sentences are often used with interjections or some other words introducing or concluding the direct speech.

Useless for young Roger to say, "Old cat!" -- for Euphemia to hold up her hands and cry: "Oh! those three!" and break into her silent laugh with the squeak at the end. (Galsworthy)

Nominal sentences may follow one another in immediate succession, thus making up a string of co-ordinated nominal sentences, as for instance:

... A blue suit, a velour hat, some brown shoes, three pairs of socks with two holes in them, four shirts only a little grayed at the cuffs, two black-and-white ties, six collars, not two new, some handkerchiefs, two vests beautifully thick, two pairs of pants, and brown overcoat with a belt and just two or three nice little stains. (Galsworthy)

Analogous syntactic structures may be traced in Russian and Ukrainian. Compare the following:

Москва... Как много в этом звуке для сердца русского слилось... (Пушкин)

Вечерние сумерки. Крупный мокрый снег лениво кружится около только что зажженных фонарей. (Чехов)

Взяв друг друга за руки, мы с минуту стояли молча. Хорошая минута. (Горький)

Перед окном рабочий чертежный стол. Радио. Экран. Три, четыре книги. (Маяковский)

Гострий струмінь морозного повітря ... осяяні в домах вікна... чиїсь голоси... дзвінки звощика... стережись! І він опинився у глухій, безлюдній вулиці. (Коцюбинський)

Степи і степи... Безлісний, трагічно беззахисний край, переповнений надміром сонця і світла. (Гончар)

In Grammar books one-member sentences are often referred to as elliptical, with some items "understood" or "felt as missing". This, however, must be taken with much reservation, since it is not always possible to supply the missing part from the immediate syntactic environment, and there is insufficient justification for taking ellipsis into account.

Nominal sentences may be coordinated and make up a composite structure with the implication of various adverbial relations, causal or resultative, in particular, signalled by the context, situational of linguistic, the lexical meaning of words, in particular, e. g.:

Ah! Well! Another long heartache in the world -- Poor Dinny! (Galsworthy)

Modal meanings are known to be expressed by structural elements of different linguistic levels. Indicating some kind of attitude of the speaker concerning the reality of what is expressed in predication, modality is, in fact, a regular structural feature of any sentence.

The same is true of one-member sentences. In these terms we distinguish:

(a) "Classical" nominal sentences naming an object of reality, asserting or denying its being. This is the same kind of modality as we find in two member verbal sentences when predication is expressed by the verb-form of the Indicative Mood. Compare the following for illustration:

"A black night", master.

Cf. It is a black night.

The two sentence-patterns given above are grammatically synonymous: the former is a verbless one-member sentence, the latter a two-member one. We cannot fail to see that both assert a real fact.

Further examples follow:

And Soames held out his hand. A distracted squeeze, a heavy sigh, and soon after sounds from the young man's motor cycle called up vision of flying dust and broken bones. (Galsworthy)

A distant flash, a low rumble, and large drops of rain spattered on the thatch above him. (Galsworthy)

What a life! What a life! was her one thought. (Dreiser)

"My wife, Professor". (Galsworthy)

She remembered Sir Lawrence's words: "Were there not, my dear? Most valuable fellows!" (Galsworthy)

(b) One-member sentences expressing command -- stylistic alternatives of the Imperative Mood:

"Silence woman!" said Mr. Kenwigs, fiercely..."I won't be silent", returned the nurse. "Be silent yourself, you wretch". (Dreiser)

The two sentences (Silence! = Be silent!) are identical in their grammatical content but differ in style and emphatic value. Consider also the following example: "Silence there, will you!" says the beadle. (Dickens) The addition of will you in the last example intensifies the meaning of a categorical command as implied by the nominal sentence.

(c) One-member wish-sentences.

The emotional colouring of such wish sentences can be intensified by interjections, e. g.:

Oh, the fine clothes, the handsome homes, the watches, rings, pins that some boys sported; the dandies many youths of years were. (Dreiser)

(d) One-member sentences of hypothetical modality:

The anomalous and unprotected nature of a room where one was nut known. The look of it. Subsequent explanation to her mother and sister maybe. (Dreiser)

Dizzily, I lauded my knuckless once more again on Gavin's buttons. Dazzling, lights, shouts, rockets, in the sky... Heley's comet, perhaps! (Cronin)

A scandal! A possible scandal! (Galsworthy)

John... heard a car drive up. The lawyers again about some nonsense. (Galsworthy)

(e) One-member conditional sentences. Condition and consequence are contracted to each other, the former is expressed by a nominal one- member sentence and the latter by a two-member one. Reality or irreality will be indicated by the mood in which the verb of the two-member sentence is used in the given context.

INFINITIVAL SENTENCES

In terms of grammatical organisation infinitival sentences should reasonably be subdivided into one-member and two-member sentences. The two groups may well be illustrated by the following examples:

To be unwordly and quite good! How new! How exciting!... To be one who lived to make people happy. (Galsworthy)

That fellow to talk of injuries! (Galsworthy)

In two-member sentences the infinitive is preceded by a noun or a nounal phrase.

Infinitival sentences are fairly common in spoken English and literary prose.

Like other units of predicative value, they can communicate not only their denotative meaning but also the connotative suggestions of various circumstances of their use.

The context, linguistic or situational, and intonation in actual speech will always be explicit enough to make the necessary modal meaning clear.

Aubrey Green threw up his hands. "Ah! That white monkey -- to have painted that! (Galsworthy)

There are interrogative infinitival sentences, e. g.:

Why waste time? Why not stay here?

A suggestion made in such infinitival sentences may be rejected as impossible (nexus of deprecation).

We surrender? Never!

In terms of style and purpose, infinitival sentences merit attention as synonymically related to sentences with finite verb-forms. Identical in their grammatical content, such synonyms differ in stylistic value, and modal force. Compare the following:

Infinitival sentences	Sentences with finite verb-forms
To have brought Fleur down openly -- yes! But to sneak her like this! (Galsworthy)	I could have brought Fleur down openly -- yes! But how can I sneak her like this!
Poor fellow! What a thing to have had hanging over his head all the time. (Dreiser)	Poor fellow! What a thing had been hanging over his head all the time.
... Would he have hesitated then? Not a moment! Operate, operate! Make certain of her life! (Galsworthy)	...They must operate, make certain of her life.
A host to snatch food from a guest! A host to strike a guest! A gentleman to strike a lady! (Bennett)	How can a host snatch food from a guest? How can a host strike a guest? How can a gentleman strike a lady?
Such midgets to have made this monstrous pile, lighted it so that it shone in an enormous glittering heap, whose glow blurred the colour of the sky! (Galsworthy)	How could 'such midgets have made this monstrous pile lighted it so that... Cf. Syn. That such midgets should have made this monstrous pile and lighted it so that...!
It seemed to him unfair. To have taken that risk -- to have been through this agony -- and what agony! -- for a daughter! (Galsworthy)	It seemed to him unfair. How could he have taken that risk...

ELLIPSIS

Ellipsis in sentence-structure is a natural syntactic process in linguistic development presented as normal practices in many, if not all, languages.

Quite a number of elliptical patterns are shortcuts in syntactic usage fixed as a form of linguistic economy by right of long usage.

In terms of traditional grammar, elliptical sentences are generally identified as sentences with the subject or predicate missing. Some grammarians hold another point of view recognising ellipsis also in sentences where the secondary parts of the sentence are felt as missing. Such was A. M. Peshkovsky' s treatment of elliptical sentences in Russian¹.

Similar statements will be found in L. S. Barkhudarov's and D. A. Shtellіng's grammar book (1973).

What is felt as implicit in elliptical sentences may be supplied from:

a) the immediate context, e. g.: "How was the play?" she inquired.

"Very good," returned Hurstwood. (Dreiser) "Cold., isn't it?" said the early guest. "Rather". (Dreiser)

b) relevance to a complete grammatical construction of a given pattern, e. g.:

"Doing well, I suppose?"

"Excellent."

"Glad to hear it." (Dreiser)

Ellipsis of a lexeme or constructions (or even parts of constructions) must surely be recognised in the analysis of sentences.

In terms of structure, distinction will be made between the following types of elliptical sentences:

a) omission of the subject:

Looks to me for all the world like an alf-tame leopard. (Galsworthy)

b) omission of the predicate in patterns with there is, there are, e. g.:

He shook a thick finger at the room: "Too many women nowadays, and they don't know what they want. (Galsworthy)

Soames stole a glance. No movement in his wife's face. (Galsworthy) "Nothing like dissecting to give one an appetite", said Mr. Bob Saweyer. (Dickens)

c) omission of auxiliary, copulative and other function verbs, e. g.:

You going to take Irene? ('Galsworthy)

d) omission of the subject and auxiliary verb, e. g.: Mean to tell me you didn't know?

Remember that boy? Staying with my father? Going to marry him? "Hallo, Michael! I'm rather late. Been to the Club and walked home". (Galsworthy)

e) omission of the subject and the copula-verb, e. g.: I don't write. Not such a fool. (Galsworthy)

I don't believe I should have done it at your age -- too much of a Forsyte, I'm afraid. (Galsworthy)

"How's your wife?" -- "Thanks", said Soames coldly, "well enough". (Galsworthy)

Some of the above given types of elliptical sentences have become regular idiomatic expressions, e. g.: colloquial See? for Do you see?

That do? (= will that do?)

See you again tomorrow (= I shall see you again tomorrow).

"I tried it, but it nearly made me leave."

"Not me. I'm nearly ten, see?" He drew a half-pound bar of chocolate from his back pocket: "Take a bit. And break me a piece off as well". (Sillitoe)

But certain restrictions are reasonably to be placed on the recognition of ellipsis, in general, since there is often the danger that we may base some part of our analysis on "understood" items in a context where there is little reason for taking ellipsis into account.

Imperative sentences, for instance, are generally expressed with no subject; and even when a subject is expressed in such sentences, the subject may be somebody or anybody rather than you, e. g.:

Somebody fetch a piece of chalk.

To treat commands, therefore, as sentences from which the subject you has been omitted would be erroneous. Commands and requests seem to be more reasonably described by stating that they are subjectless sentences in which one of a very restricted number of possible subjects may on occasion be inserted.

It would be probably erroneous to say that when a speaker indulges in what grammatically may be referred to as ellipsis, he has always a clear idea of what he omits or neglects to express. It is more likely that the speaker very often has no definite idea of what he is omitting -- indeed, that he would rather not be forced to render the idea or thought too carefully and exactly.

If, then, in such cases ellipsis should be assumed, it is because in each instance the complete grammatical construction would require more; it cannot be assumed that the speaker would necessarily fill out his construction, even in his own mind.

The first to be mentioned here are sentences presented by predicatives without a verb, e. g.: Splendid! Charming! Beautiful!

It is often said that in all these sentences the link-verb is (are, was, were) is understood, but this point of view gives no real explanation of the phenomenon. We must, in all probability, admit such patterns as a definite grammatical type, fairly common not only in English but in other languages.

There are elliptical sentences containing a subject and a predicative, which may be either a noun or an adjective e. g.:

Michael not cheerful? (Galsworthy)

Such structures are common in languages which have not developed a copula, i. e. a verb meaning to be, as well as in languages which have a copula but do not use it as extensively as, for instance, English. In Russian and Ukrainian this is the ordinary sentence-pattern, e. g.: Он занят. Он здоров. Вона щаслива. Він здоровий, etc.

By leaving out what may seem superfluous one creates the impression of hurry or stress of business which does not allow time enough to round off one's sentence in the usual way. It is also of importance that proverbs and proverbial sayings should be easy to remember and therefore not too long, e. g.: When angry, count a hundred. When at Rome, do as Romans do.

Observe also the following common sentence patterning:

He will have his own way, no matter what the consequences.

However great the danger, he is always fearless.

Never, no matter what the circumstances, must he dare to do such things.

Here we have really a double occurrence of the phenomenon in question. No matter is a preposed predicative without is, and in the clause which forms its subject, what is also a predicative to the consequences, etc., which forms the subject of the clause.

Peculiar is the use of isolated predicatives with and, e. g.:

He was such a success yesterday, and no wonder.

He may go and welcome. And a good riddance too!

You were angry, and small blame to you.

Not less characteristic are reduced clauses of comparison:

The greater the loss, the more persistent they were.

The more haste, the less speed.

In all such cases the fact that something is left out should not prevent us from recognising the utterance as sufficiently complete to be called a sentence.

He had gone up and down the stairs perhaps a hundred times in those two days, and often from the day nursery, where he slept now, had stolen into his mother's room, looked at everything, without touching, and on into the dressing-room...

Then rapidly to the door, down the steps, out into the street and without looking to right or left into the automobile. (Galsworthy)

A feeling of terseness and of vigour is also produced by the omission of verbs in such fixed patterns of usage as:

Needless to say, facts are stubborn things.

How naughty of him to say so!

In the same way the subject may be expressed by a gerund, e. g.:

No use crying over spilt milk.

No good doing such things.

Very often the subject that follows the predicative is a whole clause, e. g.:

Small wonder that we all liked it immensely.

What a pity we have missed the train!

Patterns like the following: No, he didn't. Why, hasn't he? are referred by R. L. Allen "semi-sentences".

Such sentence-patterns seldom occur as the first utterance in conversation. They are fairly common in "tag"-questions (You don't know Mr. X., do you?) and in short answers (No, I don't).

Distinction will be made here between finite and non-finite sentences:

No, I don't. Why, didn't she? Oh, caught in the act? On your way home? About to go there?

Perhaps the most important difference between finite semi-sentences and non-finite ones is that the former show time-orientation, whereas the latter do not.

VERBLESS TWO-MEMBER SENTENCES

Verbless two-member sentences are fairly common in many languages. We do not find here only points of coincidence but also specific features characteristic of any given language with its own patterns of formation and its own types of structural units.

The linguistic essence of such sentence-patterns has been differently treated by grammarians. In books devoted to teaching grammar they are often referred to as "non-sentences", "minor" sentences or "phrases" functioning as communicative units in spite of the absence of the finite form of the verb.

According to O. Jespersen and R. Long, here belong also patterns with "nexus of deprecation".

The frequency value of such syntactic units in Modern English is rather high. In terms of IC's analysis, they may be divided into two types: SP and PS, each of them characterised by various structural elements.

Type SP. The predicate (P) may be expressed by nouns, nounal groups, infinitives or participles, e. g.:

Anything the matter, Michael? (Galsworthy)

Next stop -- the British Museum?

Weather to stay cold?

Your turn to speak.

Both engaged?

Gone! The scent of geranium fading; the little dog snuffling. (Galsworthy)

A tremor of insecurity went through her. The Future, how, how uncharted! (Galsworthy)

Cowperwood, the liar! Cowperwood, the sneak! (Dreiser)

Guard's van now -- the tail light -- alt spread -- a crimson blue -- setting East -- going -- going -- gone! (Galsworthy)

Way of the world -- one man's meat, another's poison! (Ibid.)

Type PS. In patterns of this type predicate (P) may be expressed by nouns, nounal groups, and all other non-conjugated elements of the predicate: 1) pronouns, 2) pronominal adverbs, 3) participial phrases. 4) infinitives, infinitival phrases, etc.

Flying a kite, you, a grown man?

Fair gone on each other, those two.

Just to stay here, the two of us.

Bad to stick, sir. Sorry! (Galsworthy)

He hurried along, almost running, his eyes searching for a cab. None to be had! (Galsworthy)

How ridiculous to run and feel happy!

How long until dinner?

What about your own words?

A rather charming garden here!

Why not go?

Why not?

All patterns of this type are two-member sentences. The absence of attributive relations between their adnominal and nominal members may easily be proved by their structural and semantic traits as well as modulation features. The semantic value of the structure is often proved by thematic and rhematic analysis.

In terms of structure, we distinguish the following peculiarities of verbless sentences:

1) the pronominal member is not a possessive pronoun. Indicating persons or things in actual speech, pronouns are most commonly used as substitutes for names and as such generally do not need attributive adjuncts.

Words characterising pronouns are therefore predicative (not attributive) in their function, e. g.:

SP: You looking a baby of a thing this morning! PS: Wonderful civility this! Quite serious all this!

2) the presence of elements irrelevant to attributive relations, such as, for instance, the adverbial adjunct how, e. g.:

How annoying having to stand all the way home in the bus!

3) the presence or interpositional adverbial elements, modal words or negative particles, as in:

Complete Low-Cost Home Training Course now Available. Your cousin, probably, enjoying herself!

4) the use of the article: Rot the stuff!

Why the terrific hurry!

The attributive or non-attributive character of the adnominal member may depend on its position as to the nominal one. Thus, for instance, in patterns like No room ready the relations between room and ready are not attributive, because ready does not go patterning as a post-positional attribute.

Patterns like Nice furs here are also two-member sentences because the adverb here may be replaced by the demonstrative pronoun.

Verbless two-member sentences abound not only in literature but in spoken English as well. As could be seen, they are not necessarily elliptical sentences, for very often no unexpressed part is implied. We often find them in a laconic, exclamatory or otherwise emphatic style.

Writers use them as a means to make ideas stand out in vivid, clear relief.

SUBSTITUTION AND REPRESENTATION

A recurrent feature of many languages is the so-called substitution and representation. The regularities of these syntactic processes as immediately relevant to the problem of sentence-patterning merit special consideration in the theory of English structure with its own traits different from practice in other languages.

Observations on the functional use of the verbs be, do, have, shall (should), will (would), can (could), may (might), must, ought, need and dare, used to, pronominal words such as one, it, that, such, so, and the particles not and to give sufficient grammatical evidence to distinguish between substitution and representation as grammatical idiomaticity in this part of Modern English structure.

Syntactic structures with substitution are, in fact, fixed patterns of complete sentences, always anaphoric in character, as distinguished from representation resulting from non-anaphoric omission or ellipsis.

To avoid the repetition of a word that has already been used in the sentence we often use another word which readily suggests the meaning of the given one. This is substitution, which may be well illustrated, for instance, by the use of the prop-word one replacing a preceding noun in patterns like the following: Poor little rabbit! It was such a little one.

Closely related to substitution is representation, but the two processes of replacing syntactic structures are not quite identical.

Representation seems to be intermediate between ellipsis and substitution. In ellipsis a whole syntactic unit is left off and made implicit, in representation only a part of the syntactic unit is left off, the other remains and stands for the whole. Representation is systematic in character and as such is limited by rather a small number of syntactic patterns.

Substitution and representation are closely akin but not absolutely identical.

In actual speech a sentence may be reduced to a single word-form which will suffice for communication expressing the necessary meaning in a given consituation. This may be a noun, an adjective, a numeral or pronoun, a verb or modal words, an adverb or an interjection and words of affirmation and negation.

Here is an interesting example of a non-aphoristic ellipsis where the necessary meaning is made clear by consituation:

"Where to?" "Class."

"Math?"

"No, Spanish."

"In a hurry?" "Rather."

"What for?"

"Almost ten"

"Well, as long. Call me up" ¹.

The true substitute verb is the verb to do.

As a word of a most generalised sense, do can stand for any verb, except be and modal verbs. Used in this function, do will readily substitute: a) the affirmative forms of the Present and Past (Common Aspect), b) the analytical verb-forms (Present Perfect and Past Perfect), c) the Imperative Mood.

Most idiosyncratic in its character, do can also function as an auxiliary-representing verb. In this structural variety its use is restricted to the negative forms of the Present and Past (Common Aspect) and the negative form of the Imperative Mood.

The two uses of the verb do, as functionally different, may be well illustrated by the following examples: Substitution:

"Do you mean that you are going to make him pay that towards this hateful house?' -- "I do". (Galsworthy)

"Well, he takes good care of himself, I can't afford to take the care of myself that he does". (Galsworthy)

"Then I shall take steps to make you". -- "Do.". (Galsworthy) "Did you think I dropped my handkerchief on purpose?" -- "No", cried Jon, intensely shocked.

"Well, I did, of course". (Galsworthy)

"You say so not because you care about me or have done since I came here". (Mitchell)

Representation:

I wish I could travel more frequently, but I don't. ..."You never saw Boris Strumolovsky?" -- "No".--"Well, don't". (Galsworthy)

..."And you did not meet her playing golf or tennis or out riding"? -- "I did not". (Galsworthy)

Verb-representation is fairly common in patterns with the verbs to have and to be in any function, e. g.:

"Have you been through my flat?" he asked, pointing to the curtain that divided his sleeping quarters from the section where they were. "No, I haven't". (Gordon)

Familiar examples of representation will be found, for instance, in the use of an auxiliary or modal verb instead of an analytical verb-form or a modal phrase of which it is part, e. g.:

Mont caught a little crab, and answered: "That was a nasty one!"

"Please row!"

"I am". (Galsworthy)

... "But why not tell them? They can't really stop us, Fleur!" "They can! I tell you, they can". (Galsworthy)