tatement of truth or non-truth of the indicated fact. In terms of actual division, the question of the first type should be classed as the polyperspective alternative question (biperspective, triperspective, etc.), Because it presents more than one informative perspectives (more than one actual divisions) for the listener's choice; the question of the second type, as opposed to the polyperspective, should be classed as the monoperspective alternative question, because its both varieties (implicit and explicit) express only one informative perspective, which is presented to the listener for the existential yes-no appraisal.
В§ 6. The exposition of the fundamental role of actual division in the formation of the communicative sentence types involves, among other things, the unequivocal refutation of recognising by some linguists the would-be "purely exclamatory sentence" that cannot be reduced to any of the three demonstrated cardinal communicative types. *
Indeed, by "purely exclamatory sentences" are meant no other things than interjectional exclamations of ready-made order such as "Great Heavens!", "Good Lord!", " For God's sake! "" Fiddle-dee-dee! "," Oh, I say! "and the like, which, due to various situational conditions, find themselves in self-dependent, proposemically isolated positions in the text. Cf.: p align="justify"> "Oh, for God's sake!" - "Oh, for God's sake!" the boy had repeated (W. Saroyan). "Ah!" Said Lady Mont. "That reminds me" (J. Galsworthy). p align="justify"> As is seen from the examples, the isolated positions of the interjectional utterances do not make them into any meaningfully articulate, grammatically predicated sentences with their own informative perspective (either explicit, or implicit). They remain not signals of proposemically complete thoughts, not "communicative utterances" (see above), but mere symptoms of emotions, consciously or unconsciously produced shouts of strong feelings. Therefore the highest rank that they deserve in any relevant linguistic classification of "single free units of speech" is "non-sentential utterances" (which is just another name for Ch. Fries's "noncommunicative utterances"). p align="justify"> Of quite another nature are exclamatory sentences with emphatic introducers derived on special productive syntactic patterns. Cf.: p align="justify"> Oh, that Mr. Thornspell hadn't been so reserved! How silly of you! If only I could raise the necessary sum! Etc. p align="justify"> These constructions also express emotions, but they are meaningfully articulate and proposemically complete. They clearly display a definite nominative composition which is predicated, ie related to reality according to the necessary grammatical regularities. And they inevitably belong to quite a definite communicative type of sentences, namely, to the declarative type. p align="justify"> The vast set of constructional sentence models possessed by language is formed not only by cardinal, mono-functional communicative types; besides these, it includes also intermediary predicative constructions distinguished by mixed communicative features. The true nature of such intermediary constructions can be disclosed in the light of the actual division theory combined with the general theory of paradigmatic oppositions. p align="justify"> Observations conducted on the said principles show that intermediary communicative sentence models may be identified between all the three cardinal communicative correlations (viz., statement - question, statement - inducement, inducement - question); they have grown and are sustained in language as a result of the transference of certain characteristic features from one communicative type of sentences to another.
In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same time contains a distinct pronominal question:
"I wonder why they come to me about it. That's your job, sweetheart. "- I looked up from Jasper, my face red as fire. "Darling," I said, "I meant to tell you before, but - but I forgot" (D. du Maurier). p align="justify"> Semantic-syntactic comparison of the two utterances produced by the participants of the cited dialogue clearly shows in the initial utterance the features inherently peculiar to the interrogative communicative type, namely, its open rhematic part ("why they come to me about it ") and the general programming character of its actual division in relation to the required response.
Compare some more examples of a similar nature:
"But surely I may treat him as a human being." - "Most certainly not" (B. Shaw), "I don't disturb you, I hope, Mr Cokane . "-" By no means "(B. Shaw). "Wait a second, you haven't told me your address." - "Oh, I'm staying at the Hotel du Phare" (...
