THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTIVE-PREDICATIVE AND OBJECTIVE-PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS.

THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTIVE-PREDICATIVE AND OBJECTIVE-PREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS.

                                             Rajabova Kamilla Zavkiddinovna:

                                             a sophomore of Uzbek State World

                                             Languages university. UzSWLU.

                                             Academic adviser: a dean of the faculty of

                                             translation as well as a senior teacher Omonov P.X.

                                                                                                                                           Annotation: the common characteristics of subjective – predicative and objective –predicative constructions are scrutinized in this scientific paper and their connection with the whole grammatical organization is illustrated.

Key words: objective predicative construction , subjective predicative constructions , infinitive , participle I , participle II , non-verbal part construction , verbs of wish and intention , verbs of sense perception ,  causative verbs .        

The appearance of these constructions is sometimes associated with the Latin influence when certain forms of syntactic combinations were first loaned by medieval scholastic clerical books to become commonly used later. This fact cannot but raise some objections since grammatical translation loan is too rare and never common. In this connection their inner structure is to be dwelt upon. Either of given constructions is known to be able to combine with the infinitive as well as with participle I.

Objective participial construction.  The objective predicative construction functions as a complex object. It consists of a nominal part and a part which stands in subject-predicate relations to the first part. The nominal part is a noun or a noun-pronoun in the common case or a personal pronoun in the objective case. The second element of the construction is a verbal (an infinitive, participle I, participle II) or non-verbal (an adjective or a noun). Accordingly the following objective construction can be distinguished:

I. The objective with the infinitive construction:

I saw Nick take your book.

We hate him to go away.

II. The objective with participle I (or participle II) construction:

They heard somebody knocking at the door.

We found him murdered in his own house.

III. The objective with non-verbal part construction:

I never thought her clever.

This construction is the most recurrent as it may be used after a wider range of verbs, both taking a direct (I didn’t want him to see me here) and an indirect non-recipient object (We were relying on him to put things right); in the latter case the objective construction is introduced by the preposition generally used with this particular verb.

The objective predicative construction of this type is used after the following verbs:

1. Verbs of wish and intention (to wish, to want, to desire, to choose, to prefer, should/would like, to intend, to mean). Owing to the meaning of these verbs, the infinitive in the construction can be only non-perfect, as it denotes an unfulfilled action.

He would like you to see him in his office.

I did not mean it to be told to her.

2. Verbs of emotion and attitude (to like, to dislike, to love, to hate, cannot/could not bear). Those too can be followed only by non-perfect forms of the infinitive.

I can’t bear people to be unhappy or upset.

I hate you to go away.

3. Verbs of mental activity (to think, to suppose, to consider, to believe, to know, to find, to expect, to imagine, to understand, to assume, to acknowledge, to feel, to trust, etc.). After these verbs the infinitive may be used in any form, depending on the time relation between the two actions:

He believed Jennie to be playing in the garden.

I supposed him to have been married to her years ago.

If the action of the infinitive refers to the person denoted by the subject, the corresponding reflexive pronoun is used. 

I know myself to be rather slow.

4. Verbs of declaring (to declare, to report, to pronounce). With these all forms of the infinitive are possible.

They reported the plane to have been lost.

5. Causative verbs (to make, to have) take a complex object with a bare infinitive, usually it is a non-perfect infinitive, as the action is the result of inducement. The verb to gel takes a complex object with a to-infinitive.

With other verbs of inducement (to order, to command, to ask, to allow, etc.) the objective with the infinitive construction can have only the passive infinitive.

She would not allow the life of the child to be risked.

Note: If the infinitive attached to such verbs is active, it does not form a complex with the preceding nominal part; both the elements should be treated as different parts of the sentence, the first as an indirect recipient object, the second as a direct object:                                                                                                                            He ordered him to come. (Whom did he order come? What did he order him?)

6. Verbs of perception (to see, to watch, to hear, to feel, to observe, to notice). After these verbs a bare non-perfect active infinitive is used.

We saw planes zoom into the air.

They felt the earth shake under their feet.

After these verbs structures with the link verb to be are not used. Where the need arises, a subordinate clause is used.

I saw that she was pretty. (---/---> I saw her to be pretty.)

As was mentioned , the objective with the infinitive construction may be used with a few verbs as their indirect non-recipient object. These verbs are to wait (for), to rely (on), to listen (to), to look (for), to count (upon). All of them except the verb to listen take the infinitive with the particle to. With the verb to listen a bare infinitive is used.

Can I really count upon him to undertake the job?

I was relying on him to put things right.

I listened to them talk about me.

The objective with participle I construction. This construction comprises a noun in the common case or a pronoun in the objective case and participle I, which is in subject-predicate relation to the nominal part. In comparison with the infinitive in this position participle I shows more clearly the durative character of the action. The construction functions as a complex object. The objective with participle I construction can be used with verbs of three semantic groups, although with two of them it occurs very seldom. In all cases only non-perfect forms of participle I can be used. These groups are as follows:

1. Verbs of sense perception (see, hear, feel). 

There we saw the crocodiles swimming about.

Over his shoulder he could hear them snuffing.

I felt tears running down my chieks.

2. Verbs of wish. These verbs combine with the construction only occasionally.

 Nobody wanted him going there alone.

3. The causative verbs to have and to get.

He got them running his errands every day.

We’ll have them trembling with fear.

The objective with participle II construction. This construction shows that the action expressed by participle II is (or was) performed not by the person denoted by the nominal part due to the passive meaning of participle II for most verbs. However, after the verbs to have, to get, to want participle II may denote an action performed at the request of the person denoted by the nominal part. The objective with participle II construction can be attached to verbs of four semantic groups.

1. Verbs of sense perception (to see, to hear, to feel, to watch):

We heard the door shut.

They watched him examined by the doctor.

I heard my name echoed in the distance.

2. A few verbs of mental activity (to think, to believe, to consider, to remember).

At first she thought Johnny killed.

3. Verbs of wish.

Nobody wanted it done in such a way.

4. The causative verbs to have and to get. With these verbs the construction means that the action of  participle II is done for the benefit of the person expressed by the nominal part of the constructions. The objective with participle construction attached to the verbs of this group cannot be transformed into object clauses because these verbs do not take object that- clauses. Objective constructions with non-verbals.

The subjective predicative constructions . It is traditionally called the Complex Subject. The other term often used the Nominative with the infinitive construction does not embrace all variants, as the second element may be not an infinitive.  The construction consists of a noun (or a noun-pronoun) in the common case or a personal pronoun in the nominative case and an infinitive. The peculiarity of the construction is that the first element is separated from the second one by a finite verb-form which together with the infinitive forms a compound verbal predicate of double orientation, whereas the nominal part of the construction forms the subject of the sentence. Thus the construction does not function as one part of the sentence but falls into two parts each functioning separately.

Semantically of these two parts of the predicate only the second one refers to the subject, as onlythis part denotes either the action or the state of the person or non-person expressed by the subject. Thus in the sentence: He is said to know five languages it is the relation. He knows five languages that is important.

In between the subject and the infinitive there is a part of the predicate expressed by a finite verb which grammatically indicates subject-predicate relations. However, Semantically this finite verb cannot serve as the predicate of the subject, as it denotes some comment, or estimate, or judgement, or conclusion, or attitude to the action or state expressed by the infinitive. The comment or attitude comes from somebody not mentioned in the sentence, therefore such sentences can be transformed into complex ones with the indefinite-personal subject in the principal clause:

He is reported to have left. ————> They report (or somebody reports) that he has left. 

The car was heard to turn round the corner. ——> They heard (somebody heard) that the car turned round the comer.

The subjective infinitive construction is used with a limited number of finite verbs either in the passive or in the active voice:

I. Verbs used in the passive voice fall into four groups:

1) verbs of sense perception (hear, see, observe, watch, etc.). When used in the passive voice they are followed by a to-infinitive. They express the idea of evidence. The same idea is also rendered by some other verbs in the passive voice (such as find, discover).

He was seen to enter the building. (Somebody was a witness of this fact)

They were heard to quarrel. (Somebody heard them and therefore was a witness of their quarrel)

The boy was found to be sleeping at home. (Somebody found the boy and he was sleeping)

2) verbs of mental perception (think, know, mean, believe, expect, consider, assume, presume, suppose) With this construction these verbs denote different shades of expectation, opinion, judgement:

Pat was supposed to come with me tonight.

The Paliament is expected to introduce some changes into the laws.

Programmed instruction is considered to have many advantages.

3) verbs of saying and reporting (say, report, declare, predict, etc). These verbs also express some judgement or opinion:

Blackberries are said to have a lot of vitamins.

A new star was reported to have appeared in the East.

4) Causative verbs (cause, make, order, allow, etc.) The verb to make when used in the passive voice is followed by a to-infinitive.

Jule was made to repeat her words.

The doctor was ordered to change his shift.

No dam was allowed to be built in this part of the country.

II. The following verbs ace used in the active voice:

1. Verbs expressing subjective or personal attitude to facts and their evaluation (to seem, to appear, to happen, to chance, to turn out, etc.). 

The structure seemed to have been properly designed.

Your friend turned out to be stronger than we expected. 

2. Modal phrases expressing different shades of probability or certainty (to be (un)likely, to be sure, to be certain, to be bound); also adjectives or nouns with the link-verb to be expressing estimate of different kind (pleasant, hard, easy, difficult, terrible, apt, etc.). As probability mostly implies a future action the non-perfect infinitive is generally used after to be likely. With modal phrases expressing certainty both non-perfect and perfect infinitives are possible. The modal phrases to be apt, to be bound generally refer to habitual actions or states and are accordingly followed by the non-perfect infinitive:

We are certain to come to an agreement.

You are not likely to believe my story.

A strawberry, unless fresh-picked, is bound to exude juice. 

Subjective predicative constructions with non-verbal (nominal) second parts. These constructions structurally belong to the same type of subjective predicative constructions, but semantically they are different from those with verbal parts, because the second part of the predicate being a noun or an adjective denotes a new quality or state acquired as a result of the action or denote judgement, opinion of the quality. Because of its meaning the nominal part is sometimes called a subjective predicative.

The door was painted green.

Suddenly the door was flung open.

Some verbs require the second part of the predicate with the preposition as.

The plan was declared as ridiculous and absurd.

Conclusion: Syntactically as to the agent’s semantic charge either of them              ( qualifying and defining ) may be presented in the active as well as in the passive voice. Morphologically the stability of any of the given patterns is a necessary expression of its narrow grammatical meaning.

The list of used literature:

Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. IT-2. (Reprinted in Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E., eds., Readings in Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 105–124. New York: Wiley, 1956.)Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics 6–24 (edited by Jakobson, Roman). Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society. (Reprinted in J. A. Fodor & J. J. Katz, eds., The Structure of Language, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.)Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. (Research Monographs, 26.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. (Report No. NSF-16, Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Computational Laboratory.Google Scholar

Lees, R. B. & Klima, E. S. (1963). Rules for English pronominalization. Lg. 39. 17–28.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. (1965). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. (M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation.)Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. (1966). A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. IBM Research Report RC 1519. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967 a). The empirical bases of the cyclic principle. (In preparation.)Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967 b). Grammar II. (To appear as an IBM Research Report.)Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. & Lochak, D. (1966). The IBM core grammar of English. In Specification and Utilization of a Transformational Grammar. (Scientific Report No. 1, Contract AF 19(628)–5127.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, John R. (1967). M.I.T. Ph.D dissertation. (In preparation.)Google Scholar