The role of contrast in forming syntactic structures

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I CURRENT APPROACHES TO THE NOTION OF A “SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE”
1.1 “Phrase structure” in the Generative Grammar of N. Chomsky
1.2 Modern understanding of a syntactic structure
1.3 English syntactic structures
CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER I “CURRENT APPROACHES TO THE NOTION OF A “SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE”
CHAPTER II CONTRAST IN LINGUISTICS AND SEMANTICS
2.1 Contrast as seen by the discourse theory
2.2 English Contrastive Markers
2.3 Semantic contrast in the English syntactic structures
CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER II “CONTRAST IN LINGUISTICS AND SEMANTICS”
Chapter 3 Syntactic structures with contrast across various discourse types
3.1 Contrast syntactic structures in oral vs. written speech
3.2 The comparative study of contrast syntactic structures in various registers of written speech
2.2.1 Basic functions of adversative connective but
3.2.2 Additional functions of the main adversative connectives
CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER III SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES WITH CONTRAST ACROSS VARIOUS DISCOURSE TYPES
CONCLUSION
LIST OF WORKS SITE

The role of contrast in forming syntactic structures

A + B: connection of addition
A-B: connection of contrast
A, B: connection of time
A>B: connection of causality
In the connection of contrast A – B it is meant that the in the speaker’s opinion two proposition A and B are valid simultaneously and proposition B marks a contrast to the information given in proposition A.
Another important question is the position of the connectives in the syntactic structures. In their majority the most frequent connectives of the connection of contrast belong to the word class of conjunctions characterized by the fixed position at the beginning of the clause or sentence. But the semantic and syntactic functions of connecting two clauses/sentences can also be fulfilled by a number of adverbials often taking the same initial position. Sometimes, however,they are found in other, non-initial positions.
The concessive relation is characterized by the initial position of its connectives which may only be preceded by and or but and the corresponding connectives in the other languages. This is a special property of the two coordinate conjunctions which has the effect that in argumentative passages where many connectives are used the relation is fixed so that the concessive clause has to be interpreted as preceding the main clause and cannot be understood as holding a final argument and referring to the foregoing part of the text. English though in non-initial position seems to mark an exception to this observation, but it must be asked whether such sentences can be considered as having a genuine concessive meaning or what kind of function they really have.
The position of the connectives is a predominantly syntactic question. Let us consider the positions of English adversative connectives but and yet.
The very frequent main adversative connectives but always appears in initial position without any exception. From the point of view of frequency, initial position prevails.
Yet is the most frequent other connective, it occupies the initial position just as the main connective, the position being the marker for distinguishing the adversative meaning from the frequent other, mostly temporal meanings of yet.
CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER II “CONTRAST IN LINGUISTICS AND SEMANTICS”
Contrast is defined as a relation between propositions expressed by clauses, sentences or even segments of a text. The definition of ‘contrast’ includes such specific concepts as advesativity, neutral contrast, concession, and antithesis. Contrast structures are generally regarded as a routine practice in rhetorical descriptions.
In syntactic structures contrast is expressed by means of contrastive discourse markers. This class of expressions is a functional one and does not contribute to the semantic meaning, but signals the relationship between the preceding and the following segment of the phrase/text.
Contrastive relations exist in marked and unmarked form. In the marked form they are signaled by cohesive devices (conjunctions, prepositions, etc). The majority of contrastive connectives are positioned in the initial position.
English Contrastive Discourse Markers signal two types of contrast: direct and indirect contrast.
Chapter 3 Syntactic structures with contrast across various discourse types
3.1 Contrast syntactic structures in oral vs. written speech
Most text written nowadays are typically produced quickly (personal letters, e-mail messages to friends or close colleagues.
Many kinds of spoken language, not just the spontaneous speech of domestic conversation or discussions in pubs, have a syntax that is very different from the syntax of formal writing. It is essential to understand that the differences exist not because the spoken language is a degradation of written language but because any written language results from centuries of development and elaboration by a small number of users – clerics, administrators, lawyers and literary people. The process involves the development of complex syntactic constructions and complex vocabulary.
The syntax of spontaneous spoken language has been ‘designed’ or ‘developed’ to suit the conditions of speech – little planning time, the possibility of transmitting information by loudness, pitch and general voice quality, and support from hand gestures, facial expressions and so on (what is known as ‘non-verbal communication’). The syntax of spontaneous speech overlaps with the syntax of formal writing; there is a common core of constructions. However, many constructions occur in speech but not in writing, and vice versa. For example, consider these expressions formed with the help of contrast.
She doesn’t say much – knows a lot though (this construction is typical in speech).
Although she does not say much, she knows a lot (this construction is typical in writing).
One of contrastive discourse marker in the English language is instead. There are two primary uses for instead: a “pseudo-action” use, where instead signals a contrast between a non-occurring action and an occurring action; and an “actual-action” use, where it signals a contrast between two occurring actions.
The following examples illustrate the first use of instead:
a. We don’t do drugs, drink, or use profanity. Instead, we instill morals and values in our boys by raising them right.
b. In the 16th century, Elizabethans rarely cleaned their teeth. Instead they gargled with sugar water to sweeten the breath.
c. I should have sent back the drinks. Instead I looked upon them as a windfall in our rather strained circumstances.
d. Mehan expected to win easily last year, given his previous showing. Instead, he lost by a large margin.
From these examples we see that this use of instead required that the prior discourse segment S1 specify – sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly – an action that is not done (We don’t do drugs), an action that is seldom done (Elizabethans rarely cleaned their teeth), should be done (I should have sent back the drinks) or was done (Mehan didn’t win). The use of instead requires, in addition, that the second segment of the sequence, S2, specify a different action that was done, will be done, should be done, or was done. So this use of instead is the pseudo-action use.
The second use of instead is exemplified in the following example sequences.
a. The church should get out of the business of acting as an agent for the state in legalizing marriage. Instead it should create a variety of ways in which people can covenant together.
b. He should stop digging up the garden. He should/could now start planting instead.
c. Mark talked at length with the police. Instead, he should have kept quiet.
d. They criticized his artwork mercilessly. Instead, they might/could have been a little more sensitive.
In this use of instead there an action explicitly specified in S1 which has occurred. In addition, instead requires that S2 specify a different, viable action that serves as an alternative for the action specified in S1. By ‘viable’ we mean that the S2 action must ‘make sense’ as an alternative in the particular discourse context. We will refer to this use as the actual-action use of instead.
While the declarative-declarative sequence occurs most frequently, we have found all combinations of declarative, interrogative, and imperative syntactic sequences. Moreover, not just any sequence of actions can be related by instead; they must deal with the same general topic, a general property of direct contrast sequences. We can see from the following example:
a. He expected to win easily. Instead, he lost by a large margin.
b. He expected to win easily. #Instead, he climbed Mt. Rushmore last week.
And furthermore, instead is inherently anaphoric and we find many sequences like that in the following example:
a. I didn’t go. Instead (of going/of doing that), I just stayed at home.
b. Instead of going, I just stayed at home.
Finally, instead can occur initially, medially, and finally, as the examples below show.
a. He expected to win easily. Instead, he lost by a large margin.
b. Ok, we are going to use the new method. Really. What we should use instead is the old tried and true way.
c. You think it’s incomprehensible that maybe two plus two doesn’t equal four but equals seven instead.
The actual-action use of instead is created by S1 specifying an action which has occurred while S2 specifies a viable alternative action, which also has occurred. there are three means for conveying this.
First, a negative interpretation of S1 may be conveyed by using an inherently negative verb such as deny, fail, forget, refuse, reject (e.g., deny = not accept).
a. Many African-American women had rejected the kind of hair straightening and processing products promoted in this ad. Instead, in this time period, they chose a more natural look as a symbol of pride in race and African origins.
b. I was denied permission to take the exam. Instead, I was sent to the principal’s office for the day.
c. Forget the lottery. Be on yourself instead.
Second, the actual-action use may be signaled by having S1 consist of a positive, non-conditional segment, while S2 contains a conditional form might, should, or could (with an optional have) and offers an alternative action.
a. Mark talked at length with the police. Instead, he should have kept quiet.
b. The trouble with music appreciation, in general, is that people are taught to have too much respect for music. They should be taught to love it instead.
c. They criticized/condemned his artwork mercilessly. Instead, they might have been a little more sensitive.
d. Today, people are obsessed with movie stars. Instead, they should pity them.
Finally, the third way for signaling an actual-action in S1 is to indicate (either directly or by implication) that the action specified should be stopped, with S2 again offering an alternative action. The examples below illustrate this.
a. You would be amazed how many important outs you can get by working the count down to where the hitter is sure you’re going to throw to his weakness. Instead, you throw to his power.
b. The church should get out of the business of acting as an agent for the state in legalizing marriage. Instead it should create a variety of ways in which people can covenant together.
c. I just had to wonder if/whether we could get our guys to give up those football games. Would they listen to Strauss instead?
d. He stopped digging up the garden and started planting instead.
To sum up, instead has two functions: the first, the pseudo-action use, is to signal that S1 specifies an action which did not occur, while S2 specifies an action which did occur; and the second, the actual-action use, is to signal that S1 specifies an action while S2 specifies alternative action.
A variation of instead is instead of (V-ing/doing that). Anaphoric, it selects that action of S1 – the text in bold in the following examples – which is either a pseudo-action or an actual-action - converts it into a positive gerund form, as shown. The negative adverbs, the conditional form and the like are just ignored and only the main action of S1 is selected.
a. We don’t do drugs, drink, or use profanity. Instead of doing drugs, …, we instill morals and values in our boys by raising them right.
b. In the 16th century, Elizabethans rarely cleaned their teeth. Instead of cleaning their teeth, they gargled with sugar water to sweeten the breath.
c. The church should get out of the business of acting as an agent for the state in legalizing marriage. Instead of acting as an agent, the church should create a variety of ways in which people can covenant together.
d. Every waking moment should have been concentrating on the race which I was convinced I could win. Instead of concentrating on the race I was getting myself into an increasingly confrontational situation, a battle of wills, with the Director of Coaching.
We will now turn to the use of instead in combination with the three primary discourse markers in English: elaboration (and), contrastive (but), and inferential (so).
a. Most great men and women are not perfectly rounded in their personalities. But, instead they are people whose one driving enthusiasm is so great it makes their faults seem insignificant.
b. Company cultures are like country cultures. Never try to change one. But try to work with what you’ve got instead.
c. Many African-American women had rejected the kind of hair straightening and processing products promoted in this ad. #But instead, in this time period, they chose a more natural look as a symbol of pride in race and African origins.
3.2 The comparative study of contrast syntactic structures in various registers of written speech
In this part we will look at the adversative contrast as expressed by the main adversative connectives.
The main adversative connective but seem to belong to the basic equipment of connection available in the language which is proved by their high frequency and wide range of semantic application. In this respect they can almost be compared with the main coordinate conjunction and, addition and contrast being the basic ways of considering two different entities so that it is not surprising to discover traces of addition also in contrast.
There exist the following combinations with adversative connectives as the semantic centre (“X” and “Y” will be used as abbreviations):
X but Y X but not Y not X but Y not X but not Y
So these are four combinations of positive and negative forms of expressing the adversative contrast.
The form X, but Y with positive surface structure in both members of the connection is by far the most frequent and therefore generally considered the normal type.
Adversative contrast, exemplified in rather short compound sentences such as (1-3), is often used in explanations and serves as an instance in definitions and semantic descriptions in cases where the connection of contrast as such is investigated.
(1) The rain had stopped, but the drops came in sudden bursts from the trees, and each time she ducked to protect her hair. (O’Brien, p. 229)
(2) This single word was too much for Dr Leumann, now she lets her tears run, but her voice remains untouched.
(3) The light diminishes but the mountain, in a rare caprice, appears more vivacious, more animated than in the morning. (Delibes caza, p. 39)
The negative form of expression in the adversative clause is as easy to understand as the positive one and seems to be quite usual.
Now let us consider the examples below:
(4) This year the harvest will be good, but it will not by far reach that of the year ninety-eight. (Delibes Castilla, p. 86)
(5) The doctor tries to adapt the sick body to the sane body, but we do not know what is sane or sick in social life. (Pessoa, p. 193)
In (4) we come back to earth with an utterance on agricultural success, typical of a farmer’s speech who will never admit that this year is the best of all. But the sentence as such does not demand any continuation. The adversative clause brings a later limitation by additionally measuring the actual harvest with another one. The analysis with the contrastive indication mark confirms this interpretation.
In (5) the author compares the life of society with that of individual human beings, beginning in the antecedent with a statement on the essence of medical treatment form which everything and nothing can be deduced. After reading the adversative clause it turns out to be an example of knowledge in the field of medicine which is confronted with the missing knowledge of what is good or bad in social life. Again the contrastive indication mark adds another view of the connection.
The form not X, but Y is illustrated by the example below:
(6) Jenny was enthralled by the poem, her lips were parted, she was never bored. Sandy was never bored, but she had to lead a double life of her own in order never to be bored. (Spark, p. 21)
As the example (6) demonstrate, the adversative utterances altogether do not differ so much from those of the groups discussed above. The antecedents describe certain states of affairs, the adversative connectives function as signals drawing the attention to the following parts of the connections which mark an opposition within the conceptual domain.
In (6) the reactions of two girls listening to the teacher reciting a poem are described in their peculiar difference. Jenny is always interested and listens enthusiastically. Sandy, however, has ideas of her own, the words of the poem kindle fantasies in her mind and she dreams of the poetic events, herself being part of them. The author describes the girls’ day-dreams in continuation of the adversative sentence, which can be considered as a sort of introduction. Both girls are not bored, the difference being found in the causes. Sandy’s cause of not being bored in expressed in the adversative clause.
The form not X, but not Y has a very low frequency, only occurring as a sort of exception.
(7) We take these young people from all over the world, half of them don’t even speak English, but we don’t care. (Davis, p. 35/36)
The adversative sentence with negations in both members of the connection may reject the inherent claims of importance in the antecedent as the example (7).
These examples demonstrate that there is no restricted or even narrow meaning attached to adversative relations. Every single occurrence is bound to a different context from which the opposition receives its special accent, sometimes it is a direct counter-position between two states of affairs, sometimes the second member of the connection disputes, limits, restricts the propositional content of the first member, sometimes the possible and imaginable effects of an action or the assumption deduced from a given situation are rejected, and finally, sometimes the first state of affairs is merely intensified by the second one. The negation applied in the surface structure of one or the other part has neither syntactic nor semantic influence.
On the other hand the examples are instances of the few basic claims for the connection of contrast to be understood as such: in the speaker’s opinion the two members of the connection belong to the same conceptual domain and are valid simultaneously differing from each other at least in two properties.
Now we’ll deal with the question whether there are special surface means of expressing the contrast. Sometimes the contrast seems to be concentrated on a corresponding pair of expressions distributed to the two clauses. This is especially convincing with time adverbials. But the most frequent occurrence of the adversative relation is characterized by a contrast between two pieces of propositional content belonging to the same conceptual domain with emphasis laid on the second one. The natural stress attached to the adversative clause may have the result that its content rejects an implication and thus functions as a rectification of an incorrect opinion [E. Rudolph, p. 253].
We can observe a certain tendency, not only in literature, to point out the different properties within the same conceptual domain by repeating words, phrases, and semantic units in a different context or by conjoining concepts with merely small difference. This rather rhetoric application of the adversative relation can be found in various places, in literature as well as in newspapers.
Among the contrastive pairs, the adverbials of time have to be especially mentioned because they seem to have developed into a sort of repeatable contrastive pattern or formula.
(8) After listening one morning to their effusions on this subject, Mr Bennet coolly observed, ‘From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it some time, but I am now convinced.’ (Austin, p. 76)