4. Syntactic relations and connections

Coordination (parataxis), subordination (hypotaxis) and predication (interdependence) are traditionally believed to be the main types of syntactic relations (SR). These relations are abstract and do not characterize syntactic functions of elements but mark their mutual status. Therefore opposition of syntactic relations "coordination - subordination - interdependence" may be called "status opposition", since these three types of relations identify the status of elements in reference to each other. The terms "coordination" and "subordination" do not specify elements joined from the point of view of their syntactic function. And the term "predication" delivers the information on relations between two combining elements: subject and predicate. It indicates both the mutual status of the elements and characterizes their syntactic function.

Coordination. Co-ordination is the syntactic relation of independence. In syntax, this type of relation is called paratactic relation, or parataxis (from Greek “to place beside"). Paratactic relation establishes between syntactic components equal in rank and/or status and homogeneous in nature. In Modern English coordinate constructions are defined as those that consist of relatively independent elements joined by means of a coordinating conjunctions and connectives. This type of relations is accomplished by the following forms of connection a) copulative connection: you and me; b) disjunctive connection: you or me; c) adversative connection strict but fair; d) causative-consecutive connection (found only on the sentence level): She asked me not to go and I stayed at home. Means of connection used with this type of syntactic relations may be of two types: either syndeton or asyndeton. There are two bases on which paratactic relation is established: conjunction and adnection. The syntactic relations of conjunction are established between two or more homogeneous coordinate components called conjuncts. The connection between conjuncts may be either asyndetic, which is the most typical type in modern English, or syndetic, which is less frequently used. The following examples illustrate conjunction between two words and two clauses: Her blue and shining eyes impressed him deeply and he couldn’t say a word. Talent he has, but money he has not. He was fair and squire, but poor. The syntactic relations of adnection is intermediate between coordination (conjunction) and subordination (adjunction). Adnective construction of minimal composition consists of two components which are homogeneous in nature and thus relatively independent (similar to coordination), but of different status and/or rank and thus grammatically different: one is the head word (the leading element) and the other is the adnect (the element lower in rank or/and status) used to specify the meaning of the head (similar to subordination). If a nominal element specifies the head, the SR of adnection is called apposition and the adnect is called the appositive: the city of London, cover girl, note book, the heart of gold. If an adverbial element specifies the head, the relation of adnection is called specification, and the adnect is called the specifier: When are you going to come? – On Monday, late in the evening. Apposition is a syntactic process of adnective type. Applied to two or more units that belong to one and the same lexico-grainmalical class of nominals. The result of the syntactic process of apposition is formation of a syntactic unit in which one of the nominals becomes the head-word and the other (others) become appositive(s). Appositive is designed to give another name or designation to the object nominated by the head-noun. In Modern English there are four kinds of apposition:

Determining apposition. The appositive is used to determine the meaning of the head-noun. The connection between them may be of two kinds: a) asyndetic: Miss Marple, Prof Higgins, Mr X. b) syndetic: The continent of Europe, the city of London.

Descriptive apposition. The appositive describes the object denoted by the head-noun: Mr. Jones, a happy father of three, was waiting for his wife.

Identifying apposition. The appositive identifies the object denoted by the head noun. In most cases, the identifying appositive goes directly before its head-noun: Chairman, Mr. Brown, was notorious because of his long boring speeches.

Explanatory apposition. The appositive explains the meaning of the head-noun, which is always a noun of so-called general semantics, or an abstract noun, such as idea, opinion, advice, emotion, feeling, fact, etc.: I had the feeling that I was not expected to come.

Specification is another syntactic process of adnective type, which occurs when both the head-word and the adnect (called specifier) correlate with the same conceptual content of adverbial meaning. There are two kinds of syntactic relations of specification In English. In case of obligatory specification, a specifier restricts the meaning of its head: I found her in a restaurant, where she was having dinner with her boss. In case of optional specification, a specifier offers some descriptive information about its head: We live in Kyiv, our native city. Schematically paratactic relations can be shown as follows:

However, traditional view on coordination as a type of syntactic relations presupposing equality of components and mutual independence, which resulted in their positional variation has been changed, since there are cases when components in a coordinate syntactic structures may not change places. Thus, modern syntactic theory distinguishes between symmetric (boys and girls - girls and boys) coordinate constructions, whose elements may mutually change positions, and asymmetric (bread and butter - *butter and bread) ones, where elements occupy strictly fixed positions to each other. Fixed positions in coordinate syntactic constructions may result from several reasons. For instance, in two or three member coordinate set phrases the initial position is usually taken by the element containing fewer syllables: ladies and gentlemen, bed and breakfast, beauty and the beast, beg or borrow, bag and baggage, beg, borrow and scrounge, bacon and eggs, bane and antidote, Oxford and Cambridge, bees and honey, beans and bullets attitude, use and knowledge. However, in the corpus of binary set combinations one may find quite the opposite examples, though they are less numerous: beauty and truth, chicken and egg coffee and (N), collar and tie, collars and cuffs, crabbed age and youth, end or mend, dribs and drabs, doublet and hose, down and dale, December and May, debit and credit. Besides, the requirements to preserve a certain order in enumeration or some ethic considerations may cause to violate the rule: my father and me, my boss and I, Jim, Tom, Roberta and I. Coordinate constructions may also be interpreted as those whose components correlate in the same way with some third item outside the coordinate group. For example, in I was shocked but did not show my embarrassment, the verbs was shocked and did not show maintain the co-ordinate relation, since they both correlate with the word I outside the co-ordinate structure. Similarly, in Father and his friends had dinner in the evening, the nouns father, his friends form a co-ordinate group not because they are joined by the coordinating conjunction and but because they display similar, parallel correlation with the predicate of the sentence had. Means of connection used with syntactic relations of coordination may be four types: prepositions, inflection function words and word order.

Subordination. Subordination is syntactic relations of dependence, since it is thought to be based on inequality of combining words or clauses: one of the components dominates over the rest and subordinates them when their form and position are concerned. In syntax, this type of relation is called hypothetic relation, or hypotaxis (from Greek 'to place in order', 'to place one after another"). Hypotaclic relations is established between components that are neither cognate nor homogeneous, but quite different. Syntactic relations of subordination can be of the following three kinds a) adverbial to speak slowly; b) objective: to read a book; c) attributive: blue eyes. Based on the syntactic process of adjunction, hypotactic construction of minimal composition obligatory includes the following two types of components: the head - a governing element which possesses constructive significance; the adjunct - a dependent element within a syntactic construction. Contrary to the process of coordination based on expansion, the process of adjunction is based on extension, which is enlarging the amount of components by adding more dependent ones. Extension may be of the following two types: modification - extension of the nominal head, an adjunct is called the modifier: blue eyes, eyes full of tears; complementation - the extension of the verbal head, an adjunct is called the complement: to read a book, to read loudly. Modification is a syntactic process of adjunction type, which occurs when the adjunct (modifier) stands in attributive relations to its head (a nominal).

In English, the modifier may he of several types distinguished on the basis of the following criteria: (1) Position of modifier in relation to its head. According to this criterion modifier can be of two kinds: a) premodifier precedes the head: blue eyes; b) postmodifier follows the head: eyes full of tears (2) The way modifier modifies its head. According to this criterion modifier can be of two kinds: a) direct, expressed by such parts of speech as adjective, numeral, gerund, past participle and clause; b) indirect, expressed by such parts of speech as noun (in both the common and the genitive case, with or without a preposition), pronoun, present participle, infinitive and the clause. (3) Function of modifier in relation to its head. According to this criterion modifier can be of three kinds (a) qualifier gives a qualitative characteristic of its head: a new dress (b) quantifier gives a quantitative characteristic of its head: a full moon (c) determinative determines its head: my sister's visit.

Syntactic relation of subordination between a verb (head word) and its adjunct (complement) is established due to complementation, a syntactic process of adjunction type. In English, complementation may be of the following three types: objective complementation, which shows object orientation of the action denoted by the head-verb. The majority of English verbs require an objective complement after them: read/write/take smth; Adverbial complementation, which serves to compensate the categorial semantic incompleteness of the head-verb. The complement of this type characterises action from several aspects, namely: its location (place and time), manner and circumstantial perspective. For example, verbs of motion usually have formally marked expression of the direction of action: go back, run away, jump down. Mixed type of complementation occurs when verbs require both objective and adverbial complements as obligatory: treat smb badly, put down, give sth u,p congratulate smb on smth.

Syntactic relations of subordination are accomplished by the following forms of connection: agreement (concord), government, adjoinment, enclosure. As means of syntactic relations agreement presupposes formal correspondence between members of a syntactic group: a subordinate word agrees in number with its head word if it has different number forms at all, for instance, in this book - these books - that book - those books the demonstrative pronouns agree in number with their head word. In Modern English the sphere of agreement is restricted to two demonstrative pronouns - this and that, agreeing with their head word in number when they are used in initial position in a phrase whose head word is a noun. Other types of agreement, for instance, agreement of the verb with the noun or pronoun denoting the subject of the action (The bird sings, they sing) are controversial, since there are examples which prove that the verb does not always follow the noun in the category of number: The United States of America is the most powerful state. The United Nations is an international organization. My family is large. His family are writers. The above examples show that there is no agreement in number of the verb with the noun expressing the doer of the action: the predicate can be independent of the subject (the subject is plural - the predicate is singular if the doer of the action is understood to be singular). Government is a form of subordination when the head-word determines the grammatical form of its adjunct, the latter assuming the particular form, but not coinciding with the form of the head word itself. Government is used to describe relations between the governing verb and its object, and the governing preposition and its object. The object is to take the form required by the governing element. In English, it can be observed in verbal word-groups with the pronoun in the objective case: to see him (her, them). Government may be verbal or prepositional: to replace them, to hear about him. In Modern English government is restricted only to personal pronouns and to the relative and interrogative pronoun who when they are subordinate to a verb or follow a preposition: I saw him and told him about it (case government) I rely on my knowledge (preposition government). Who(m) did you see? Who(m) did you tell? The above examples show that the notion of government is doubtful due to the obvious tendency to use the forms him, her, them, me etc. outside their original sphere as forms of the objective case, and as applied to the form whom, which is rather often superseded by the form who.

Adjoinment (also called parataxis) is a form of subordination which has no inflectional or prepositional marking. It means combining components without any changes of the grammatical form: He gave the letter silently . She cast her glance quickly. They shook their hands joyfully. In the above examples, both the noun head and the adverbs silently, quickly, joyfully are linked with the verbs gave, cast, shook by means of adjoinment or parataxis. Relations between the verbs and the nounal groups, on the one hand, and the verb with the adverbs, on the other, are not explicated. These relations are based on valences of these combinining units. Parallel use of these units is not obligatory, since they may be separated from each other in a sentence. Adjoinment may be marked by the word order, more exactly, by the placement of the adjunct in the contact position to the head, semantic dependence becoming of greater significance. This form of subordination is characteristic of English subordinate word-groups, and it appears specific, having in most cases no parallels with adjoinment in synthetical langauges which is restricted to verb-adverb relations only: saw a boy; interesting stories, three remarks; went home; ran quickly; looked sideways.

Enclosure (framing-up) is a form of subordination when some element of a phrase is enclosed between the two parts of another element. It is represented by: a) enclosure of the premodifier between the noun-determiner (article) and the noun-head itself: a predicate function; the then government; the 'take it or leave it' tradition; this recently retired officer; b) enclosure of the addressee-object between the verb and the object-complement: She showed her friend a picture; She gave her students an assignment. c) Probably, he is here (parenthesis). Schematically hypotactic relations can be shown as follows:

Predication. In the case of predication or interdependence (the term offered by L. Hjelmslev) the first element depends on the second one and the second element, in its turn, depends on the first. Predicative word-groups are structures with predicative connection of words, built on syntactical interdependence uniting the subject and the predicate. The reciprocal nature of this connection consists in the fact that the subject dominates the predicate determining the person of predication, while the predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of predication, i.e. ascribing to the person some action, or state, or quality. Syntactic relations of predication can be of the following two kinds: primary and secondary. Primary predication regularly establishes between the subject and the predicate of the sentence (underlined in the example below): I want you to go there. The student works hard. Apart from the primary predication word-groups, which are singled out in the sentence and comprise the subject and the predicate there also exist secondary predication word-groups, represented in English by syntactical constructions often referred to as predicative complexes (complex object, complex subject, absolute constructions, etc.): I hear them singing; The circumstances permitting, I will visit you today. I am waiting for them to come. Secondary predication regularly establishes between a verb in any of non-finite forms and its complement (underlined in the example below): I want you to go there. Formalization of predication is accomplished by subject-predicate agreement. Means of connection used with this type of syntactic relations may be two types: either inflections or word order. Comparative observations of predicative and non-predicative phrases have shown that among the latter there are definite nominalized constructions capable of realizing predicative relations: population growth (= the population grows), the stormy sea (= the sea is stormy). Predicative relations are concealed by the overt attributive relations between the constituents of such noun-phrases.

Accumulation. Subordination, coordination and predication are not sufficient to characterize all types of syntactic relations, since logical relations are not able to cover all the diversity of syntactic relations within grammatically organized structures. In syntactic studies the term relation may be defined as mutual dependence of elements which may or may not be expressed formally, since any relation is objective and as real as the elements between which it appears. Accumulation is a minor type of syntactical relation between the elements in phrases. A phrase is identified as (ac)cumulative on the basis of some element outside the word-group: (to write) his friend a letter; (to see) a man or three minutes; (to come) home very early; those important decisions); some old (cards). The position of elements is fixed (cf. *important these (decisions); *old some (cards). This implies some kind of syntactical connection, neither coordination (cf. *some and ) nor subordination (cf. these decisions; important decisions). Accumulative relations are observed not only in groups of two objects of different types. Accumulative relations are widely spread in attributive groups that consist of attributes expressed by different morphological classes: these new articles, some well-known writers. The above examples contain elements that are not indifferent to each other, since their syntactic position is fixed and they may not change places: *well-known some writers, *new these articles. The fixed positionproves that the elements in a given attributive group are linked by a certain types of relation, neither coordination, nor subordination, nor interdependence, but accumulation.

Thus, there are four types of syntactic relation in Modern English: coordination - subordination - interdependence - accumulation.

5. Syntactic process. Syntactical processes establish various types of syntactic relations. There are three main syntactical processes: enlargement, reduction and emphasis. Syntactic process are derivational (if they result in the derivation of a syntactical construction-type) and alternational (if they predetermine the extension or other non-constructive changes of a syntactical construction). Alternational syntactical processes are realized in the sphere of speech, while derivational syntactical processes work in the sphere of language and reflect regularities in complication or reduction of syntactical units of different syntactical status: phrasal, clausal, and sentential.

1. Syntactical processes of the enlargement-type are addition, expansion, extension, elaboration, specification, or complication.

Addition presupposes that each of extension elements refers to another as to a semantically and syntactically independent unit. They are related to each other only by the common syntactic position within a construction. Their order may be influenced by a number of factors: (1) linguistic: structure of additional elements, link with pre- and post-text, language usage, etc; (2) extralinguistic: the sequence may be dictated by their succession in space, time, or it may depend on speaker’s subjective evaluation, etc. All syntactical processes of the enlargement-type are various ways of addition.

Expansion is the process of adding one or more components of the same grammatical status, resulting in formation of syntactic units built on the basis of paratactic syntactic relations. Expansion is aimed at enlarging the content of word-groups in sentences. It is based on conjunction, i.e. coordinate joining of homogeneous elements, elements syntactically equal in rank. For instance, He brought me red roses can be expanded in the following ways: a) red and white roses; b) red roses and tulips; c) red roses and white lilies.

Expantion is generally classified into three kinds:

1. Apposition: Harry brought me red roses - Harry, my husband, brought me red roses.Apposition is a syntactic process of adnective type. Applied to two or more units that belong to one and the same lexico-grainmalical class of nominals. The result of the syntactic process of apposition is formation of a syntactic unit in which one of the nominals becomes the head-word and the other (others) become appositive(s). Appositive is designed to give another name or designation to the object nominated by the head-noun. In Modern English there are four kinds of apposition:

Determining apposition. The appositive is used to determine the meaning of the head-noun. The connection between them may be of two kinds: a) asyndetic: Miss Marple, Prof Higgins, Mr X. b) syndetic: The continent of Europe, the city of London.

Descriptive apposition. The appositive describes the object denoted by the head-noun: Mr. Jones, a happy father of three, was waiting for his wife.

Identifying apposition. The appositive identifies the object denoted by the head noun. In most cases, the identifying appositive goes directly before its head-noun: Chairman, Mr. Brown, was notorious because of his long boring speeches.

Explanatory apposition. The appositive explains the meaning of the head-noun, which is always a noun of so-called general semantics, or an abstract noun, such as idea, opinion, advice, emotion, feeling, fact, etc.: I had the feeling that I was not expected to come.

2. Specification: Let’s meet tomorrow – Let’s meet tomorrow in the park at 10 o’clock. Specification is syntactic process of adnective type, which occurs when both the head-word and the adnect (called specifier) correlate with the same conceptual content of adverbial meaning. There are two kinds of syntactic relations of specification In English. In case of obligatory specification, a specifier restricts the meaning of its head: I found her in a restaurant, where she was having dinner with her boss. In case of optional specification, a specifier offers some descriptive information about its head. Specification is a way of syntactical extension achieved by means of a syntactical element modified by one or more other complementing elements called appended modifiers (explanatory words or phrases): We live in Kyiv, our native city.

Specification is based on syntactical parallelism or doubling. An appended modifier is usually parenthetic and follows the headword as an afterthought. It is a dependent part which can refer to practically any part of the sentence and answer the same question, but in a fuller and more detailing way, narrowing or particularizing the notion expressed by the headword. Therefore, the headword is usually more general in meaning than the appended part; very often it is a pronoun: We are very much alike, my husband and I.

Appended parts may be joined asyndetically and in this case they are marked off graphically by a comma or a dash: She read an awful lot — novels, poetry, all sorts of stuff. They may be also joined by conjunctions (and, or), explanatory words (namely, that is, for example, for instance), intensifying particles/adverbs (almost, just, even, especially, particularly, at least), modal words (in fact, indeed): She speaks English well – almost perfectly well. (conv) Modern film makers, that is ordinary producers, are not very profound thinkers.(news)

Another way of linking the appended modifier to its headword is the repetition of the same part with modifying words: My aim is happiness – the happiness of both of us. Insertion results in the enlargement of a syntactical unit due to the independent elements – direct address or parenthesis – added to a sentence optionally: You, my darling, will have to leave this place. Fortunately, every attempt she made to leave this country had failed. The specific status of these sentence elements (syntactic independence) makes it impossible to treat them as secondary sentence part, therefore they are referred to as independent elements of the sentence.

3. Enumeration or repetition. His voice became louder - His voice became louder and louder. She was getting older and older.

Enumeration can be achieves by means of homogeneous parts of the sentence which are characterized by the following features:

1. They are connected by coordination, that is, are of equal rank. They are joined either by coordinating conjunctions (copulative conjunctions and, nor, neither... nor, as well as, both ... and, not only but also; disjunctive conjunctions or, either ... or, adversative conjunction but and conjunctive adverb yet), or asyndetically: She rose, crossed to the writing table, wrote out a letter and handed it to me.

2. They have one and the same syntactical function in the sentence and similar syntactical relations with other parts of the sentence: My husband and I ate in silence (subject). The flower was red and yellow (predicative).

3. They are separated from each other by pauses in speech and generally by commas in writing: I noticed the angry lines of his face, and the desperate, worried look of his eyes. 4. They may differ: a) in their structure; b) in the ways of pression (morphologically): She didn't feel well and stayed in bed compound nominal and simple verbal predicate. The Johnsons and I have been to five balls to-night (proper noun and pronoun). From the point of view of their syntactical function, there may homogeneous a) subjects (He and Sam didn't discuss such things); predicates (She got up and dressed in a hurry); c) predicatives (He is little and worn and helpless); d) objects (She had on a sweater and a skirt); e) attributes (He wore a blue, striped shirt); d) adverbial modifiers (She had lessons on Tuesday and on Sunday afternoons). There are, however, cases which look very much like homogeneous parts but which should be distinguished from them: 1. Different kinds of repetitions which make the utterance expressive but which name the same notion: I waited and waited. 2. Phrases where coordinated nouns refer to one person: my son and their, their friend and defender, her friend and counselor. 3. Syntactically indivisible coordinated phrases in which the component can be removed and which make one indivisible part of the sentence: Four and four is eight. 4. Sentences where the predicate consists of two parts joined by the conjunction and which in this case has no copulative meaning: Try and do it properly. — Try to do it properly. Come and help me [Федоренко, Sukhorolska, 2008:308].

Extension is the process of adding to a certain syntactic unit other units of the same syntactic status. This syntactic process is built on the basis of hypotatic syntactic relations. Elements of extention are not structurally conditioned, since a sentence or a phrase are structurally complete without extention. However, extension can be optional and obligatory in case the dependent element possesses constructive value and complements the element it is added to, for instance: I brought books for reading. I want to see him. You need to read much.

The extention of a construction can be achieved by means of modification: ideas – fresh ideas or complementation: to read - to read much. Dependent elements can be adjoined to the construction itself or to any of its constituents. For instance, the construction fresh ideas can be extended in three different ways: (1) fresh ideas of a new type; (2) very fresh ideas; (3) fresh ideas which are now in my head .The A +A+ N (brilliant fresh ideas) construction is adjunctive, since it is formed through adding subordinate components to an element that is the head.

A set of elements, interrelated by extention, may be treated as one extended part of the sentence or as sequence of syntactic elements of a common syntactic status and syntactic relation. Relations between elements of extension may be additive and specifying: I have strong hot coffee at 7 o’clock in the morning.

Extension may be achieved syndetically and asyndetically: He was happy, back from hospital. University library newly registered readers.

Elaboration or complication is a syntactic process that presupposes structural changes in a syntactic element that makes the syntactic element compound. is based on derivation and results in structural complication of a syntactical unit (part of the sentence). In this case, a certain syntactical unit is considered basic, other syntactical structures are derived from it: I think. — I began to think. Having the same syntactical function and distribution, think and began to think differ as to their structure and aspectual meaning, since began to think indicates the beginning of the action. Here belong compound verbal modal and phrasal predicates: They read newspapers in the Park. — They can (may, must) read newspapares in the Park. They began (kept, went on, stopped) reading the newspapers in the Park. Simple predicates become compound.

Elaboration or complication is peculiar to sentence parts other than the predicate. One may find elaboration in sentences which contain constructions of secondary predication, for instance, complex objects. The direct object may occur in a sentence after some verbs, admitting or requiring its elaboration. These verbs are semantically diverse: verbs of mental and psychic activity (to think, to consider, to remember; to like, to wish, to want etc): She thought the proposal acceptable; verbs of communicative processes (to call, to speak, to tell, to declare): We were declared man and wife; causative verbs (to keep, to hold, to leave, to send ): He made me a happy woman; verbs denoting physical perception ( to see, to hear, etc): I heared them telling jokes.

2. Syntactical processes of reduction. Syntactical processes of reduction result in lessening the amount of a syntactical unit, but the unit is not destroyed, its wholeness should be compensated in its content and in its form. Syntactical processes of the reduction shorten the message, making the connections of meaning easier to grasp.

Syntactical processes of the reduction-type are condensation, omission or ellipsis, compression, contamination, substitution or replacement, representation, nominalization.

Condensation as a syntactical process of reduction closely connected with nominalization and secondary predication, which bring about compression of different types of subordinate clauses, implying synthesis of content.: I imagined that he was clever. — I imagined him to be clever. I imagined him clever. Gerundial, infinitival, participial, or nominal constructions and nominal condensers make it possible to do without a subordinate clause which would be otherwise necessary: I hope to see you again (= I hope that I will see you), The man arrested by the police was taken to the jail (=The man who was arresteded by the police...). Whether good or bad, he is my husband… (=Whether he is good or bad …).

Syntactic condensation as well as compression leads to laconity and lends variety to speech. In compression by nominalization a sentence dispenses with a subordinate clause which results in closer cohesion of its elements and greater condensity of the whole sentence structure grouped around one single subject-predicate unit. This relative compactness of the English sentence and the use of various condensers as its synonymic alternatives is one of many syntactical features that show the analytical character of Modern English [Раєвська, 1976:286].In present-day English the tendency to compactness through nominality is still strong. The variety of grammatical forms in nominalization may be illustrated by the extensive use of a) one-member nominal sentences (Winter. Silence!); b) infinitival, sentences (To have her love!); c) noun-adjunct groups (population growth); d) prepositional nominal phrases with propositional meaning (in bloom, under the question), e) gerundial, infinitival, participial nominate and predicative complexes (She laughed to think of it. Wholly frastrated, she left).

The short passive, the passive without an expressed agent phrase, can also be viewed as a form of condensation: The shop windows were broken (news). The principle type of condensation is ellipsis or omission.

Ellipsis is the omission of elements which are precisely recoverable from the linguistic or situational context. Hence ellipsis performs the function of speech economy. As a syntactic process ellipsis or omission is based on the compulsory distribution, since obligatory distributive relations between two or more elements make dropping of one of them possible. It should be noticed that depending upon the location in the clause, we can distinguish between initial allipsis: He squeezed her hand but <he> met with no response. (fict); medial ellipsis: He and his mate both jump out, he <jumped out > to go to the women, his mate <jumped out > to stop other traffic on the brodge. (fict) final ellipsis: Perhaps, as the review gathers steam, this can now change. It needs to < change >. (news)

The above examples show that elliptical sentences are structurally incomplete, but semantically full, since the ellipted elements, restored in < >, can be added without changing the meaning of the clause and without producing an ungrammatical structure. These are the hallmarks of ellipsis. Omission of elements which are recoverable from the linguistic context may be called textual ellipsis, which occurs in coordinated clauses, camparative clauses, question-unswer sequences, and other contexts where adjacent clauses are related in form and meaning. In conversation, one may find omission of function words and situational ellipsis, where the omission and interpretation are dependent upon the situational context.

Ellipsis found in coordinated clauses share elements with a preceding clause. The clauses may explicitly marked by a coordinator or joined without a link: You’ve become part of me, and I, of you. (fict) I thought they were on the – seat but they’re not. (conv) The pattern of sex differences was that girls generally scored better than the boys on the money and number pattern items and boys on the measures. (acad)

Comparative clauses characteristically mirror the structure of a preceding clause: She looks older than my mother. (conv)

Ellipsis in coordinated and comparative clauses is common in both spoken and written registers.

Ellipsis is the rule in question-answer sequences: A: Have you got an exam on Monday? B: Two exams. (conv)

A full interrogative clause is sometimes followed by a more specific question which is elliptic in form spoken by the same person: What time they supposed to be back? Early? (conv) In the same way full declarative clauses are followed by elliptic statements: Maybe Henry would realize she was as nice as she pretended to be. Maybe not, though. (fict)

Textual ellipsis of the type illustrated above is characteristic of conversation and of dialogue or the representation of thought in fiction. [Biber, 1999:156-157].

Contamination is not frequently occured and observed only in the system of the predicate. In this syntactical process two syntactical units (conjoint or adjoint) merge into one. Contamination produces a so called double or contaminated predicate: She went out embarrassed = She went out. She was embarrassed.

Syntactical contamination of the subject-clause pattern can be used as a frame for an independent sentence: You just fell in love yourselves is what had happened. The cited contamination presents a feature of highly emotional speech.

Simultaneous realization of two heterogeneous grammatical functions in one form) is characteristic of verbs of broad semantics (be, have, get, go, become, stand, remain, (lay, feel, look, appear, seem, take). The main verb in this group is be. O.A. Shpak distinguishes seven models of contamination with this verb: 1) predicator and copulative operator Anne and Adam were in town now and grown up; 2) predicator and operator of the continuous form (The young Mexican was at the bar and already drinking); 3) predicator and operator of the passive form He was now under the influence and arrested); 4) copulative operator and operator of the continuous form (Her children were grown-up and pursuing their own lives); 5) copulative operator and operator of the passive form (It is a kind of unorthodoxy and considered thus by some); 6) operator of the continuous form and operator of the passive form (They must have been both watching and being watched); 7) copulative operator and operator of the compound verbal modal predicate (Accidents were lamentable but also to be expected in such a place) [Шпак, 1990: 7-8].

Substitution or replacement means using general words instead of words with concrete menings mentioned in pretext. It is used to reduce constructions with repeated components and avoid the repetition of a word that has already been used in the sentence. Would you like a cup of tea? — No, thanks. I've just had one (= a cup of tea)

Means of achieving substitution in English are rather various: verbs of broad semantics (do, take, make, have get, come, go) various classes of pronouns(I, he, she, it, we, you, they, that, who; my, his, her, its, our, your, their, this, that). Some adverbs (so, thus, there, thereby, therein, then, here, now) etc. The most frequent among the pro-forms are: the verb do, personal pronouns, the pronoun one, and demonstrative pronouns. Most pro-forms replace or refer to some or all of a noun phrase. But a few other constructions are involved. The adverb pro-forms relate to adverbials: Terry walked to the park and we went there too. Do relates to a part of the clause containing the verb: Fred walked to town and I did too. As a word of a most generalized sense, do can stand for any verb (normally a verb denoting some action or activity), except be and modal verbs. It need not be in the same tense, or mood, as the verb which it replaces: You travel around the world. We would like to do that too. I shall never love you more than I do now. Then I shall take steps to make you. — Do. So replaces object, predicative, or adverbial elements or whole clauses: His income was insufficient and likely to remain so. John searched the big room very carefully and the small one less so. John's leaving home. — I told you so. Along with the pro-verb do, so replaces a predication: They have promised to increase pensions. If they do so, it will make a big difference to old people. So is a substitute for that-clauses representing reported statements, beliefs, assumptions, emotions: The government won't provide the money — I have heard the minister say so. Has Terry gone home? — I think so. Not may replace so in negative clauses: I hope not. I'm afraid not. He may be innocent, if so, why did he give himself up? If not, why didn't he try to escape? It, that, this are widely used as substitutes for clauses as well as for noun phrases: If you make a sound, you'll regret this.

An important feature of present-day English is formal structural substitution which is caused by the significant prevalence of elements analysis over the elements of synthesis in grammar. The substitute word it is used as formal impersonal or introductory (anticipatory) subject, introductory (anticipatory) object: It was a great success to win the heart of the readers. He thought it correct to give the true information. Syntactical structures with substitution are fixed patterns of complete sentences. Substitution is always anaphoric in character. What makes substitution specific is its dependence on text, syntactic correlation of an element with a preceding or following element. One more specific quality of this syntactic process is to compress speech.

Representation is a kind of reduction in which the component of a syntactical unit is used to represent the content of the whole unit: She is working hard this night. – Yes, she was (= was working hard) yesterday, too. I don't know if he's available, but I am. Can you believe me? – Sure I can. Are you going to clean the room? – I could, and ought to, but I don't think I will. Auxiliary verbs (be, do, have, shall, will), the link verb be and modal verbs (can, may, must, shall, will, ought, dare, need) are the chief means of representation in Modern English. They represent the meaning of the predicates, performing a substituting function. Verb-representation – the use of an auxiliary or modal verb instead of an analytical verb-form or a modal phrase of which it is part – is highly characteristic of the English language. This kind of representation is found within the limits of one sentence (She didn't play with Ella, never had), and also in short answers in dialogue (Oh, she's fainted again. – No, I haven't). The auxiliary always represents the analytical form which was last used in the sentence. Function verbs become thus sequence-signals by referring back to specific full verbs or verb-headed structures. No less often used is the infinitival marker to (so called representing to): He thought of having another drink, but he was afraid to. I'm a fool to tell you the truth. – You'd be a bigger fool not to.

Representation is also realized with the help of the particle not in the following constructions a) whether + subject + predicate + or+ not: Whether you believe it or not, he wept until his eyes were red. Are you wondering whether I'm joking or not? b) why + not And he's going to marry you? – Why not? c) subject + auxiliary + not: Tell them about it. – I'll not; d) subject + auxiliary + rather/ better + not: Do you intend to tell him what you have been telling me tonight? – I had rather not. I do not want to go. – It is better not. [Теплий, 1992. 15-16].

Representation may also be realized with the help of inflections -s/-s' representing the noun: The other voice was raised, it was a woman’s (= a woman's voice). Representation results from non-anaphoric omission or ellipsis. Representation seems to be intermediate between ellipsis and substitution [Огоновська, 1991: 6; 1992: 8]. In ellipsis, a whole syntactical unit is left off and made implicit. In representation, only a part of the syntactical unit is left off, the other remains and stands for the whole (partial ellipsis). In substitution, one lingual unit is used instead of another. In the sphere of verbs representation and substitution complete each other: in synthetical verbal forms (Present Indefinite and Past Indefinite) substitution by do is used, whereas in analytical (complex) ones representation is used. Representation, like substitution and ellipsis, is a means of avoiding the repetition of various grammatical units (words or groups of words) already mentioned. These syntactical processes are the main ways in which sentence structure can be shortened, to avoid saying or writing the same thing twice (abbreviating the sentence). [Fedorenko, Sukhorolska, 2008:238-240]

In interrogative and negative constructions do functions as an auxiliary-representing verb: Did you read that book in the end? – I did not. I wish I could travel more frequently, but I don't. In affirmative constructions it may be both a substituting and a representing verb: He speaks English as well as she does (=speaks). Have you written to your parents yet? —Yes, I did last week (= wrote to my parents). Do as a representing verb is used in a) constructions So do I, so did they, etc.; b) emphatic constructions: I do so love you, mom, I do, I do.

Syntactic process of emphasis are parceling and segmentation.

Parcelling is a case of embedded construction where a sentence element forms a separate sntence. By parceling we usually mean placing s syntactically dependent sentence-element out of its usual sentence frame and setting it off by a full stop like an independent unit [Раєвська, 1976:197]. Adverbial, attribute, epithet adjuncts and objective complements can be found in such isolated position. The expressive value of such sentence-patterns, marked by special intonation in speech and puncuation inwriting, makes them most effective both in fiction, news, academic and conversation registers of contemporary English: The river swilled him along. He whistled in happiness. (fict) At last she was saved. By her father. (fict) Teenager is being hailed as a hero for saving a toddler from drowning. The child plunged into a fast-flowing stream. (news) It is possible to separate one from the other. In certain situations one aspect may be more involved. (acad) We were laughing about it. I was telling them that we were sick of seeing the rain. Let’s go to the party. In my car. (conv)

Parcelling is considered to be a means of expressive syntax. Parcelled and non-parcelled sentences are related to each other as stylistic variants. He was frustrated. Completely broked. (KBL)

Segmentation is a twofold designation, a special kind of reduplication where the sentence is split into two interdependent sentence-elements related as the theme and the rheme respectively, the former being set off in a position of an independent unit [Раєвська, 1976:198].

For instance: The nation could no longer support the expense of feeding livestock - and farmers had to grow more cereal and vegetable crops. Oh God! [D8Y]

Segmentation is also typical for complex sentences with various types of syntactic relations, in particular, addition:…Oh God! And all the soil’s eroding cos it’s sort of sand and it’s red. And it goes into dust. So it goes everywhere. So I mean there’s gonna be trouble with that in the future. [D97]

Segmentation is also related with laconity and expressivity of speech: Centurion [stopping]. Halt! Orders from the captain. … The Captain’s coming. Mind you behave youselves. No singing. Look respectful. Look serious. (Show, “Androcles and the Lion”) The above example shows that a segment is very important element of oral syntax, since it may focus the attention of the speaker and the listener on the par of syntactic construction.

Both parcelling and segmentation are intended to give emphatic prominence to the separated sentence-elements and as such have much in common. However, the two syntactic devices are not absolutely identical.

Thus, syntactic processes are essential elements of the syntactic theory. By using various syntactic processes we can extend, reduce or make the sentence structure more emphatic which may help to achieve our communicative goals in any style and register of English.