-sentences exposing the heroine's disillusions (from D. du Maurier's "Rebecca"):
Packing up. The nagging worry of departure. Lost keys, unwritten labels, tissue paper lying on the floor. I hate it all. p align="justify"> Associations referring to the absent axes in the cited sentences are indeed very vague. The only unquestionable fact about the relevant implications is that they should be of demonstrative-introductory character making the presented nominals into predicative names. p align="justify"> As we see, there is a continuum between the one-axis sentences of the free type and the most rigid ones exemplified above. Still, since all the constructions of the second order differ from those of the first order just in that they are not free, we choose to class them as "fixed" one-axis sentences. p align="justify"> Among the fixed one-axis sentences quite a few subclasses are to be recognised, including nominative (nominal) constructions, greeting formulas, introduction formulas, incentives, excuses, etc. Many of such constructions are related to the corresponding two-axis sentences not by the mentioned "vague" implication, but by representation; indeed, such one-axis sentence-formulas as affirmations, negations, certain ready-made excuses, etc., are by themselves not word-sentences, but rather sentence-representatives that exist only in combination with the full-sense antecedent predicative constructions. Cf.: p align="justify"> "You can't move any farther back?" - "No." (Ie "I can't move any farther back"). "D'you want me to pay for your drink?" - "Yes, old boy." (Ie "Yes, I want you to pay for my drink, old boy"). Etc. p align="justify"> As for the isolated exclamations of interjectional type ("Good Lord!", "Dear me!" and the like), these are not sentences by virtue of their not possessing the inner structure of actual division even through associative implications (see Ch. XXII).
Summing up what has been said about the one-axis sentences we must stress the two things: first, however varied, they form a minor set within the general system of English sentence patterns; second, they all are related to two-axis sentences either by direct or by indirect association.
The semantic classification of simple sentences should be effected at least on the three bases: first, on the basis of the subject categorial meanings; second, on the basis of the predicate categorial meanings; third, on the basis of the subject-object relation.
Reflecting the categories of the subject, simple sentences are divided into personal and impersonal. The further division of the personal sentences is into human and non-human; human - into definite and indefinite; non-human - into animate and inanimate. The further essential division of impersonal sentences is into factual (It rains, It is five o'clock) and perceptional (It smells of hay here). p align="justify"> The differences in subject categorial meanings are sustained by the obvious differences in subject-predicate combinability.
Reflecting the categories of the predicate, simple sentences are divided into process-featuring ("verbal") and, in the broad sense, substance-featuring (including substance as such and substantive quality - " nominal "). Among the process-featuring sentences actional and statal ones are to be discriminated (The window is opening - The window is glistening in the sun); among the substance-featuring sentences factual and perceptional ones are to be discriminated (The sea is rough - The place seems quiet).
Finally, reflecting the subject-object relation, simple sentences should be divided into subjective (John lives in London), objective (John reads a book) and neutral or "potentially" objective (John reads) , capable of implying both the transitive action of the syntactic person and the syntactic person's intransitive characteristic.
CHAPTER XXV. SIMPLE SENTENCE: PARADIGMATIC STRUCTURE
grammar studied the sentence from the point of view of its syntagmatic structure: the sentence was approached as a string of certain parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic functions. As for paradigmatic relations, which, as we know, are inseparable from syntagmatic relations, they were explicitly revealed only as part of morphological descriptions, because, up to recent times, the idea of ​​the sentence-model with its functional variations was not developed. Moreover, some representatives of early modern linguistics, among them F. de Saussure, specially noted that it was quite natural for morphology to develop paradigmatic (associative) observations, while syntax "by its very essence" should concern itself with the linear connections of words.
Thus, the sentence was traditionally taken at it...
