Some word combinations and phrases mean something completely different from what would result from a simple addition of the words used. Why can one and the same sentence be understood differently if the semantic stress is rearranged from one word to another? If the sentence is in context, then the surrounding words usually provide clarifications that help not to make a mistake. But sometimes it is very difficult to draw the right conclusion. In addition, it greatly complicates the perception of information, because it takes too much effort to put in place pieces of sentences and phrases. Considering the problems of explanation and perception, it is important to separate the syntactic and actual division of the sentence.
If you do not immediately understand which member of the sentence is the main and which is dependent, and what the speaker makes a statement based on already known facts, and what he wants to present as unique information, you will not get a fluent reading, no worthwhile dialogue with the interlocutor. Therefore, when presenting, it is better to coordinate your words with some rules and established norms inherent in the language used. Arguing in reversedirection, the assimilation process will be easier if you become familiar with the principles of the logical formation of sentences and the most common uses.
Syntax and semantics
It can be said that the actual division of sentences is the logical connections and accents, or rather, their explanation or discovery. Misunderstandings often arise when communicating even in the native language, and when it comes to foreign language operations, it is necessary, in addition to standard problems, to take into account differences in culture. In different languages, this or that word order traditionally prevails, and the actual division of the sentence should take into account cultural characteristics.
If you think 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 in relation to what is happening. For nouns, these are, for example, the meanings of gender, person, number, and case; for verbs, such indicators are tenses, declension, inclination, conjugation, perfection, etc. Each word has an ending or suffix (and sometimes even changes in the root) corresponding to the function performed, which allows morphemes to respond sensitively to the changing climate in the sentence. The Russian language is synthetic, since the logic and syntax of phrases in it are largely based on the changeability of morphemes, and combinations are possible in absolutely any order.
There are also isolated languages, in which each word corresponds toonly one form, and the meaning of the statement can only be conveyed through the means of expressing the actual articulation of the sentence as the correct combination and sequence of words. If you rearrange the parts of the sentence, the meaning can change dramatically, because the direct connections between the elements will be broken. In analytical languages, parts of speech can have word forms, but their number, as a rule, is much lower than in synthetic ones. Here there is some compromise between the immutability of words, a rigidly fixed word order and flexibility, mobility, mutual reflection.
Word - Phrase - Sentence - Text - Culture
Actual and grammatical division of the sentence imply that in practice the language has two sides - firstly, the semantic load, that is, the logical structure, and secondly, the actual display, that is, the syntactic structure. This equally applies 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. Of paramount importance is the semantic load - for it is obvious that, by and large, this is the only purpose of the language. However, the actual mapping cannot exist separately, since, in turn, its only purpose is to ensure the correct and unambiguous transmission of the semantic load. The most famous example? "Execution cannot be pardoned." In English, it may sound like this: “Execution is unacceptable then obviation” (“Execution, is unacceptable then obviation”, “Execution is unacceptable then, obviation”). For the rightunderstanding this indication, it is necessary to determine whether the actual members are the “execute”, “cannot be pardoned” group or the “cannot be executed”, “pardon” group.
In this situation, it is impossible to draw a conclusion without syntactic indications of that - that is, without a comma or any other punctuation mark. This is true for the existing word order, however, if the sentence looked like “it is impossible to pardon”, the corresponding conclusion could be drawn based on their location. Then "execute" would be a direct indication, and "it is impossible to pardon" - a separate statement, because the ambiguity of the position of the word "impossible" would disappear.
Theme, rheme and articulation units
The actual division of sentences involves the division of the syntactic structure into logical components. They can be either members of a sentence, or blocks of words that are closely united in meaning. Terms such as topic, rheme, and unit of articulation are commonly used to describe the means of actual articulation of a sentence. The topic is already known information, or the background part of the message. The rheme is the part that is emphasized. It contains fundamentally important information, without which the proposal would lose its purpose. In Russian, the rheme is usually found at the end of a sentence. Although it is not unambiguous, in fact, the rheme can be located anywhere. However, when the rheme is located, for example, at the very beginning of a sentence, the surrounding phrases usually contain either a stylistic orsemantic reference to it.
The correct definition of the topic and rheme helps to understand the essence of the text. Units of division are words, or phrases indivisible in meaning. Elements that complete the picture with details. Their recognition is necessary in order to perceive the text not word by word, but through logical combinations.
"Logical" subject and "logical" object
There is always a subject group and a predicate group in a sentence. The subject group explains who performs the action, or whom the predicate describes (if the predicate expresses a state). The predicate group says what the subject does, or reveals its nature in one way or another. There is also an addition that is attached to the predicate - it indicates an object or a living object, to which the action of the subject passes. Moreover, it is not always easy to figure out what is the subject and what is the complement. The subject in the passive voice is a logical object - that is, the object on which the action is performed. And the addition takes the form of a logical agent - that is, the one who performs the action. The actual division of a sentence in English highlights three criteria by which you can make sure that there is a subject and that there is an object. First, the subject always agrees with the verb in person and number. Secondly, it, as a rule, takes a position before the verb, and the object - after. Thirdly, it carries the semantic role of the subject. But if reality contradicts any of these criteria,then, first of all, consistency with the verb group is taken into account. In this case, the object is called the "logical" subject, and the subject, respectively, the "logical object".
Disputes over the composition of the predicate group
Also, the actual division of the sentence gives rise to many disputes over what is considered a predicate group - the verb itself, or the verb and its related additions. This is complicated by the fact that sometimes there is no clear boundary between them. In modern linguistics, it is generally accepted that the predicate, depending on the grammatical scheme of the sentence, is either the main verb itself, or the verb itself with auxiliary and modal verbs (modal verbs and auxiliaries), or the linking verb 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 should convey is always concentrated at a certain point. The actual division of the sentence is designed to recognize that this point is a peak and attention should be focused on it. If the emphasis is incorrect, misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the idea may occur. Of course, there are certain grammatical rules in the language, however, they describe only the general principles of the formation of constructions and are used for template construction. When it comes to logical emphases, we are often forced to change the structure of an utterance, even if it contradictsthe laws of education. And many of these syntactic deviations from the norm have acquired the status of "official". That is, they are fixed in the language, and are actively used in normative speech. Such phenomena take place when they free the author from resorting to more complex and excessively cumbersome constructions, and when the end justifies the means to a sufficient extent. As a result, speech is enriched with expressiveness and becomes more diverse.
Some idioms would be impossible to convey within the framework of the standard operation of sentence members. For example, the actual division of a sentence in English takes into account such a phenomenon as the inversion of sentence members. Depending on the expected effect, it is achieved in different ways. In a general sense, inversion means moving members to a place that is unusual for them. As a rule, the subject and predicate become participants in inversions. Their usual order is the subject, then the predicate, then the object, and the circumstance. In fact, interrogative constructions are also inversions in a sense: part of the predicate is transferred ahead of the subject. As a rule, its non-sense part is transferred, which can be expressed by a modal or auxiliary verb. Inversion here serves the same purpose - to make a semantic emphasis on a particular word (group of words), to draw the reader / listener's attention to a certain detail of the statement, to show that this sentence is different from the statement. It's just that these transformations are so long agoexist, come into use so naturally, and are so ubiquitous that we no longer treat them as something out of the ordinary.
Rhematic selection of secondary members
In addition to the usual subject-predicate inversion, any member of the sentence can be brought to the fore - a definition, a circumstance or an addition. Sometimes it looks quite natural and is provided for by the syntactic structure of the language, and sometimes it serves as an indicator of a change in the semantic role, and entails a rearrangement of the rest of the participants in the phrase. The actual division of a sentence in English suggests that if the author needs to focus on any detail, he puts it in the first place, if it cannot be distinguished intonation, or if it can be distinguished, but under certain conditions ambiguity may arise. Or if the author simply does not have enough effect that can be obtained by intonational emphasis. At the same time, the subject and action are often rearranged in the grammatical basis.
Word order
To talk about various kinds of inversions as a means of highlighting one or another part of a sentence, you need to 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 the aggregate, it will also be necessary to note how compound members are formed.
In the standard scenario, the subjectalways comes before the predicate. It can be expressed by a noun or a pronoun in the common case, a gerund, an infinitive, and a subordinate clause. The predicate is expressed through the verb in the form of the infinitive itself; through a verb that does not carry a specific 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. An auxiliary verb can be a linking verb or a modal verb. The nominal part can also equally be expressed by other parts of speech and phrases.
Cumulative meaning of phrases
The theory of actual division of a sentence says that the unit of division, correctly defined, helps to reliably find out what is being said in the text. In combinations, words can acquire a new, unusual, or not entirely characteristic meaning for them individually. For example, prepositions often change the content of the verb, they give it many different meanings, up to the opposite. Definitions, which can be completely different parts of speech, and even subordinate clauses, specify the meaning of the word to which they are attached. Concretization, as a rule, limits the range of properties of an object or phenomenon, and distinguishes it from the mass of similar ones. In such cases, the actual division of sentences must be done carefully and carefully, because sometimes the connections are so twisted and erased by time that the association of an object with any class, relying only on part of the phrase,takes us far from reality.
A division unit can be called such a fragment of a text that can be defined using hermeneutics without losing contextual connections - that is, which, acting as a whole, can be paraphrased or translated. Its meaning may deepen, in particular, or be located on a more superficial level, but not deviate from its direction. For example, if we are talking about an upward movement, then it should remain an upward movement. The nature of the action, including physical and stylistic features, is preserved, but there remains freedom in interpreting the details - which, of course, is best used in order to bring the resulting version as close as possible to the original, to reveal its potential.
Search for logic in context
The difference in syntactic and logical division is as follows - 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 Russian is based on this statement. Although, from the standpoint of some modern linguistic theories, this is the predicate. Therefore, we will take a generalized position, and say that the main member is one of the components of the grammatical basis. When, from the point of view of logic, absolutely any member can turn out to be the central figure.
The concept of the actual division of the sentence means by the main figure that thisan 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 draw more extensive connections and parallels if the statement is taken in context. As we know, the grammatical rules in the English language regulate that both the subject and the predicate must be present in the sentence. If it is not possible or necessary to use the real subject, the formal subject is used, which is present in the grammatical basis as an indefinite pronoun, for example, “It” or “there”. However, sentences are often coordinated with neighboring ones and are included in the general 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 dots and exclamation marks, and the acceptor is forced to seek clarification in the surrounding neighborhood - that is, in the context. Moreover, in the English language there are examples when even in the context there is no tendency to reveal these terms.
Except for special cases of use in narratives, Imperatives and exclamations are used in the ordinary order for such manipulations. The actual division of a simple sentence is not always easier than in complex constructions due to the fact that members are often omitted. In exclamations, in general, only one single word can be left,often an interjection or a particle. And in this case, in order to correctly interpret the statement, you need to refer to the cultural characteristics of the language.
