d in traditional grammar as the "purpose of communication". p align="justify"> The purpose of communication, by definition, refers to the sentence as a whole, and the structural features connected with the expression of this sentential function belong to the fundamental, constitutive qualities of the sentence as a lingual unit .
In accord with the purpose of communication three cardinal sentence-types have long been recognised in linguistic tradition: first, the declarative sentence; second, the imperative (inducive) sentence; third, the interrogative sentence. These communicative sentence-types stand in strict opposition to one another, and their inner properties of form and meaning are immediately correlated with the corresponding features of the listener's responses. p align="justify"> Thus, the declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative, and as such stands in systemic syntagmatic correlation with the listener's responding signals of attention, of appraisal (including agreement or disagreement), of fellow- feeling. Cf.: p align="justify"> "I think," he said, "that Mr. Desert should be asked to give us his reasons for publishing that poem. "-" Hear, hear! "Said the К. С. (J. Galsworthy). "We live very quietly here, indeed we do; my niece here will tell you the same." - "Oh, come, I'm not such a fool as that," answered the squire (D. du Maurier ).
The imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative. That is, it urges the listener, in the form of request or command, to perform or not to perform a certain action. As such, the imperative sentence is situationally connected with the corresponding "action response" (Ch. Fries), and lingually is systemically correlated with a verbal response showing that the inducement is either complied with, or else rejected. Cf.: p align="justify"> "Let's go and sit down up there, Dinny." - "Very well" (J. Galsworthy). "Then marry me." - "Really, Alan, I never met anyone with so few ideas" (J. Galsworthy). "Send him back!" He said again. - "Nonsense, old chap" (J. Aldridge). p align="justify"> Since the communicative purpose of the imperative sentence is to make the listener act as requested, silence on the part of the latter (when the request is fulfilled), strictly speaking, is also linguistically relevant. This gap in speech, which situationally is filled in by the listener's action, is set off in literary narration by special comments and descriptions. Cf.: p align="justify"> "Knock on the wood." - Retan's man leaned forward and knocked three times on the barrera (E. Hemingway). "Shut the piano," whispered Dinny; "let's go up." - Diana closed the piano without noise and rose (J. Galsworthy). p align="justify"> The interrogative sentence expresses a question, ie a request for information wanted by the speaker from the listener. By virtue of this communicative purpose, the interrogative sentence is naturally connected with an answer, forming together with it a question-answer dialogue unity. Cf.: p align="justify"> "What do you suggest I should do, then?" said Mary helplessly. - "If I were you I should play a waiting game," he replied (D. du Maurier). p align="justify"> Naturally, in the process of actual communication the interrogative communicative purpose, like any other communicative task, may sporadically not be fulfilled. In case it is not fulfilled, the question-answer unity proves to be broken; instead of a needed answer the speaker is faced by silence on the part of the listener, or else he receives the latter's verbal rejection to answer. Cf.: p align="justify"> "Why can't you lay off?" I said to her. But she didn't even notice me (R. P. Warren). "Did he know about her?" - "You'd better ask him" (S. Maugham). p align="justify"> Evidently, such and like reactions to interrogative sentences are not immediately relevant in terms of environmental syntactic featuring.
An attempt to revise the traditional communicative classification of sentences was made by the American scholar Ch. Fries who classed them, as a deliberate challenge to the "accepted routine", not in accord with the purposes of communication, but according to the responses they elicit [Fries, 29-53]. p align="justify"> In Fries's system, as a universal speech unit subjected to communicative analysis was chosen not immediately a sentence, but an utterance unit (a "free" utterance, ie capable of isolation) understood as a continuous chunk of talk by one speaker in a dialogue. The sentence was then defined as a minimum free utterance. p align="justify"> Utterances collected from the tape-recorded corpus of dialogues (mostly telephone conversations) were first classed into "situation utterances" (eliciting a response), and "response utterances". Situation single free utterances (ie sentences) were further...
