The role of contrast in forming syntactic structures

(20) They knew the rudiments of astrology but not the date of the Battle of Flodden or the capital of Finland. (Spark, p. 6)

(21) On a narrow sofa at the opposite wall lay a cashmere blanket with an oriental pattern but dull colours. (Frischmuth, p. 21)

(22) — hunting for deer with decoy, unknown in Spain but very much practiced in Central Europe — (Ortega, p. 131)

In this group of examples, other parts of speech form contrastive pairs, such as nouns (20), adverbials (21), or participles (22) which seem to be abbreviations of entire clauses.

The rather strange knowledge of the school girls in (20) describes indirectly their teacher’s pedagogical interests: astrology is seen in contrast to historical dates, bound together by the conceptual domain of school teaching. The knowledge of one or the other item is accidental, normally the second member of the pair can be expected. It is denied and given the main stress, so that the information of the sentence can be summarized in ‘these girls do not learn what they ought to' - the ironic meaning being revealed by the context.

In the description of the interior decoration of a fairy’s house, the sentence of (21) is amazing only if we expect something fantastic, the propositional content being rather simple. The contrast of ‘with an oriental pattern — but dull colours' refers to the readers' world knowledge that oriental patterns generally have bright colours.

The parenthesis of (22) inserted in a long sentence is an interesting bit of information, at least for people not acquainted with hunting, both members of the contrastive pair ‘unknown — very much practiced' seem of equal weight and can be exchanged.

All these contrastive pairs of constituents are probably not obligatory abbreviations of longer clauses but follow the speaker’s intentions of giving more information in relatively short passages, especially in descriptions, so that the narrative coherence does not suffer much interruption. In direct speech, on the other hand, contrastive pairs can make the utterance clear and precise and thus convey a more detailed knowledge of the speaker’s opinions.

Although these contrastive pairs constitute a special form of expressing a minimal contrast, they can also be analysed applying the contrastive indication mark because the contrast is obvious and easy to understand. It corresponds to our common philosophy of life where oppositions and contrasts are normal phenomena of the world we live in. The two propositions A and B do not correspond to antecedent and adversative clause, since there is only one sentence where tow contrastive constituents are opposed to each other. In the analysis the first constituent corresponds to the characteristic A, the second to characteristic B, usually not occurring together. Another characteristic C is not expressed but can easily be presupposed as a possible second member of a pair, which is more likely to meet our knowledge of the world.

2.

2.1 Basic functions of adversative connective but

The contrastive indication mark has been understood as the shortest description of the underlying idea of contrast being a combination of two propositions which on the background of our causal view of how things belong together are seen as expressing a broken causal chain. This background causality cannot be equally confirmed in all examples.

The first propositions often do not seem to demand a completion or continuation. The implications or presuppositions attached to them remain unnoticed until the adversative connective induces the hearer to expect new information given in the contrastive second proposition.

The role of the negation is generally not very strong. Similar to common usage the negated clauses are mostly assertions of states of affairs. Adversative contrast can find special expression in contrastive pairs of lexical and semantic units belonging to the same conceptual domain, where the speaker’s opinion and the greater argumentative force is expressed in the clause containing the second member.

The propositional contents as such are very often set in opposition where the main adversative connective serves as a signal for the double function of addition and separation: new information is added to the foregoing context and at the same time it is separated because it is the more important information.

Among the normal expressions of the adversative relation some semantic peculiarities have been mentioned. In the rectification of a possible incorrect opinion about cause of effect of the antecedent the adversative clause refers to an implication deduced from the first proposition. Different levels of speech are directly expressed when the adversative clause is a metalinguistic commentary to the state of affairs of the antecedent.

The analysis of special expressions of modality in one or the other or both members of adversative sentences has confirmed the opinion that the speaker’s aim of message is always laid down in the adversative clause. This is valid independently of the modal aspects of necessity or possibility, from the expression of wishes or other feelings.

The minimal contrast of pairs of constituents has been mentioned as the last group because it is relatively frequent and can be explained to full length sentences.

The essential characteristics gathered in the contrastive indication mark can be found in the normal expressions of the adversative relation in so far as it is one of the relations of the connection of contrast which have been observed above.

In the spite of the usual causal background reflected in contrastive utterances the first member of an adversative relation often does not demand a continuation before the connective is uttered. This observation confirms the intuitive impression of the main adversative connective being the very centre of the relation and fulfilling the double function of addition and separation. Implications and presuppositions therefore seem to be second thoughts induced by the connective. The influence of negation and modality in one or both parts of the relation turned out to be surprisingly small.

The speaker’s opinion that there is a connection of contrast existing between two given propositions which is best presented in an adversative relation is always the underlying motive of the utterances. He establishes the adversative contrast and he emphasizes the propositional content of the adversative clause.

The minimal contrast of pairs of constituents described in the last group is probably not to be understood as an abbreviation of the extended normal adversative relation. There are other opportunities for abbreviation. These minimal pairs really express an adversative thought which has a genuine place in our endeavours to comprehend life. But only in rare cases they can be taken for compression forms of full adversative relations as which they are often interpreted in the linguistic literature.

3.

2.2 Additional functions of the main adversative connectives

Starting from the basic functions of the adversative connective as they have been displayed so far, other applications can be interpreted. If we observe the total amount of occurrences not yet fully described, most of them can be understood as particular applications of the basic functions. But for a rather complete picture of the wide range of meanings a speaker can express by using the main adversative connective and the hearer will understand it seem appropriate to mention the broad tendencies that can be distinguished.

(23) Excuse me, please, I was a little irritated, the situation —

But no, I have nothing to excuse, will you please pardon me.

(24) — Where are my parents? And my wife?

— Where do you want them to be? At home.

— No, but if you proceed with it — who knows what may happen?

(25) — There is no such thing as a Sitting Dog, said the dog, trembling and suddenly looking at me with sharpness, and there is no solution apart from us.

— But there will be a solution, certainly, I hurry to say, reconciliating because I want to finish the conversation in an optimistic tone.

The situations in which a speaker is interested in changing the meaning of what his interlocutor said may be very different. There may be the sharp sound of rebellion (23) and the smoothing down tone of great politeness (24). There may be the highly dangerous attempt of a priest to convince a fugitive to return home (25).

As regards their verbal structure, the examples demonstrate more differences than similarities. What they have in common is the endeavour of the second speaker to restrict the validity of what the first speaker said. The contrast established by the adversative clause always refers to the propositional content of the preceding utterance and sometimes to the implication one may deduce from it. The end of a dispute as described in (23) often consists of a mutual promise of both partners that they will respect each other’s opinions and that their differences will not affect their benevolent feelings. In such an ending of controversies they excuse themselves and restrict the scope of the pardon they are asked to give by extending the scope of pardon the partner is asked for.

In the dangerous situation of (24) the fugitive limits himself to the most essential questions in the shortest possible form. In his adversative answer the priest restricts the duration of a peaceful time for the family making clear how much depends on his interlocutor’s relations. The question of how the family is doing is answered with only one word. The restriction of a possible implication that things might come to a good end is not given in a simple adversative clause but in a warning conditional sentence with a question as the second member of the relation which is subordinate to the introducing but acting as a signal for the following contrast.

The rectification if (25) where the second speaker asserts exactly the opposite of what the first speaker said, is not bound to fairy-tales and fables, but well-known to us all, when two different opinions evaluating a situation collide.

The application of adversative contrast in speech and especially in dialogues demonstrates the far-reaching possibilities of formulating and understanding the notions of contrast and opposition. The contrast does not necessarily have to refer to a single utterance but can be extended to a bundle of underlying meanings and feelings. The interpretations and analyses have to consider a wider context and cannot be easily described by using a small number of figures.

Thus the contrastive indication mark, without losing its general value for describing the syntax and semantics of the connection of contrast, will not be strictly applied to these adversative sentences uttered in continuation by two speakers. The most impressive result of the analyses may be summarized in short words: that the adversative connective is and remains the hinge upon which all parts of the relation depend.

Among the many different applications the adversative connective has found oral speech and especially in direct communication between tow or more persons, one type deserves special attention, as it is the combination of approval and objection. The type is not limited to the formula yes, but, which is sometimes used merely as a stereotype at the beginning of a new turn typical of discussions among young people, as has been observed by Koerfer (1979). Approval may also be expressed by other means.

(26) Then Maureen said: ‘I think what you have to do is to finish your dream.'

‘Yes, but I can’t make it happen.'

‘I meant, you must finish the dream before you go back to your family. You mustn’t go back before it is finished.' (Lessing Summer, p. 199)

(27) ‘That is not done in any foreign office in the world,' the press chief came in aid.

‘Of course. But constant dropping wears the stone.' Tuzzi thought that this quotation expressed a certain danger.

(28) — This moment we live in is only a period of retreat, a short pause for reflection: the backward paths before the next jump. Because, dear fellow, the fight continues.

— I know, my friend. But listening (in the train, in a cafeteria, on the bus) to «the insolences», the almost forgotten voice of the past, this aches, it truely aches.

From our common experience in conversations we all know the situation that we agree to what somebody else is saying and at the same time we have an objection to make. The objection may be an additional bit of information as in (26) or general remark, be it in form of a quotation as in (6) or a sort of folk wisdom as in (27). Sometimes the objection only expresses the feelings of the second speaker as in (28).

Approving the validity of the preceding propositional content to a certain degree means a repetition from the point of view of the second speaker, who takes it into his own adversative sentence where it is always the second clause that contains the speaker’s main ideas, his actual opinion, the real message. The only difference in comparison to sentences structured from beginning to end by one speaker lies in the fact that the first idea as it was uttered in the antecedent did not come from the same speaker who expressed the second, the adversative clause. Or in other words: the second speaker seized the information, the assertion as it is given the by the first speaker, make it his own opinion and then adds something which the first speaker probably did not wish to say.

The communicative interaction between two speakers is melted down into one speaker’s utterance. It is understandable, however, only after having heard the first speaker. One can argue that the second speaker when understanding the first speaker’s utterance immediately saw the implications of it and reacted with his own turn, especially pointing to the logically weak parts of the first turn.

The contrastive indication mark therefore can be applied without difficulty under the condition that the approval of the second speaker is taken for the whole antecedent uttered by the other speaker. Then proposition A corresponds to the first speaker’s utterance as approved by the second speaker, inducing the hearer (= the second speaker and any reader of the text) to imagine a distinct continuation corresponding to proposition C. This presupposition is rejected by proposition B corresponding to the adversative clause so that the chain of events or causality is broken off and the propositional content of the adversative clause is stressed as the speaker’s own opinion.

As opposed to the adversative sentences in dialogue, in this group adversative clauses are gathered where the speaker refers to the interactional situation expressing his own opinion, agreeing with earlier utterances, adding a statement to the theme in question without exactly expressing an opposite point of view. In this regard the adversative connectives are markers of turn-taking as this term is used in the conversational analysis.

(29) «I don’t know mush about them. For instance, how fast do they fly?»

«They can do about sixty, but of course it depends on the wind and weather.»

«Sixty mile an hour? Good heavens! Do you know if my cousin’s birds were carriers?»

«I don’t know. They were all homers, of course; you might say all pigeons are.»

«But you never saw her send a message?»

«No. But that’s not to say she didn’t. There was a lot she did that I was never allowed to know.» (Steward, p. 153)

(30) I’ll do what is in my power to bend off the Small Question or, if this does not succeed, get it rebuffed in the Council in some other way.

As you like, said A.

But you must let me! The rector implored. (Muschg, p. 304)

(31) — Don’t count on me this afternoon.

— But you have got hold of a pretty hare.

— That's it. I have enough. (Delibes caza, p. 34)

(32) — Zagallo, is colonel Pato still waiting out there?

— Waiting, Excellency!

— He shall come in!

— The Army shall come in!

Abelino and Basilio, seized by another attack of fear, held on to His Excellency’s arms.

— But is he trustworthy?

— Isn't he a liberal?

For the act of adding his own turn to the interactional situation the speaker can choose among a variety of expressions such as the neutral particles yes and no, the pause filling particles well, and coordinate conjunctions. The main adversative connective with its high frequency and low sound seems to be very appropriate for introducing new turns.

The examples above demonstrate the different contrastive force of the connective. In (29) with three occurrences of but in a conversation about pigeons, the first adversative clause marks a limitation to its antecedent, the second one is a question which resumes the theme of the same speaker’s former question with the adversative connective as a marker of turn-taking, and the third one restricts the foregoing negation.

Similarly, in (30) the speaker continues the ideas displayed in his former turn, after having been interrupted by the other speaker. In (31) the first speaker wants to leave the hunting party, and the second speaker hopes to keep him back, without success, as becomes clear from the next turn of the first speaker. The second speaker does not formulate a direct objection, only the adversative connective expresses his oppositional opinion as to the first speaker’s wish to go. The propositional content of the second speaker’s utterance reminds the addressee of his hunting fortune. The presupposition that this fortune may be continued is rejected by the first speaker who declares the hunting fortune to be the cause of his leave.

The discourse of (32) with four interlocutors is characterized by very short turns, questions and answers following each other, two of the speakers are frightened and do not trust the officer. Their first question therefore begins with the adversative connective.

The analysis of dialogues in literature can certainly not substitute the thorough observation of occurrences of a given phenomenon in actual speech. But whoever has studied the results of discourse and conversational analysis will be astonished to see to what a large extent the rules and restrictions established in this branch of linguistic research are observed in literary narrations. It is especially the authors of novels and short stories who often have an excellent feeling of how people speak in ordinary communication.

There is a diminishing intensity of contrast between the two utterances of two speakers connected to a coherent total by the second speaker, ranging from strong objections, along rectifications and slightly opposite answers, the combination of approval and new information by using the affirmation particle before the adversative connective, until the application of the adversative connective as a marker of turn-taking where the contrast sometimes seems to be reduced to the speaker’s wish to remark something the other speaker or speakers has/have not yet mentioned.

In the written language the relative distance between an antecedent containing various sentences and an adversative consequent is manifested by beginning a new sentence with the adversative connective. In such cases it seems to have more expressive force, especially in the cases when it is followed by more than one sentence. With all these impressions and observations in mind, it is quite understandable that the adversative connective seems to have a distinct meaning which, however, is not easy to describe.

(33) Geraldine drew a picture that included this magpie, in which Doyle was represented as a devilish-looking creature with staring black eyes. But when my mother found the drawing she furiously burned it, saying that a dead person must be respected no matter how despicable he had been in life. (Trevor, p. 40)

(34) All we need is that you say we share a secret because you have drawn me into this idea which is now also my idea. But I shall see to it that it remains an idea and that we will not make such history. (Mann, p. 887)

(35) My name is not known, because they only call me Perico the Sad: but as nothing between heaven and earth remains secret, my family will know my fate sooner or later. (Caballero, p. 210)

(36) They seemed to be tired. But when the siren made the last call, they tightened their muscles, they surpassed themselves. (Gomes, p. 43)

The adversative connective fulfils its main function, acting as a signal to induce the hearer to a mental operation of expecting something new and oppositive. But it is not immediately followed by the adversative clause, which follows after another inserted clause. It seems as if the adversative connective is in an isolated position limited to the unique meaning of separation and addition. The inserted clause, which in all cases can equally well follow the adversative clause, gives it special emphasis.

The examples are constructed with different inserted clauses, but in all four instances can be found for all adverbial clauses. Here temporal (33, 36) and causal clauses (35) are quoted, and the simple object clause (34). The most interesting combination is that of adversative and concessive clauses, which will be described below as «accumulation».

The examples are also suitable for another aspect in interpretation. One may argue that it is nothing but a change in word order that has the result of two conjunctions being direct neighbours. Another order is acceptable in (33) — But my mother burned the drawing when she found it. The assumed case with a transformed order demonstrate that the adversative clause is at the same time superordinate to the subordinate when-clause. The reason why the subordinate clauses are placed in first position is clearly of stylistic nature.

The interesting point is not so much why these instances are possible, but more the observation that the main adversative connective, being a coordinate conjunction, manifests its independence from a hierarchical structure of subordinating the second thought to the foregoing first one. But, of course, in view of the very frequent occurrence of adversative relations the cases of this group are so rare that they might be considered exceptions. Their peculiarity is the isolated position of the connective, which visibly acts as a hinge between two complexes, as is demonstrated in (33) and (34). In this function it marks the climax where the two complexes are pushed together.

Because of its generally high frequency the main adversative connective is used not only in the basic functions of signaling a contrast between two propositions but also in a number of secondary functions where the expression of contrast is not the essential message.

Three different applications of the connective in additional functions have been considered:

After stereotypes of excusing, thanking and not wanting to say something the connective points to the fact which is the reason for begging pardon or refusing an offer, or which the speaker did not want to mention.

In dialogues the connective introduces the turn of the second speaker which may be an objection, a rectification or limitation to the turn of the first speaker or may refer to the interactional situation of the two speakers. It is always the second speaker who ties to make an coherent total of the connection by completing the preceding proposition of another speaker.

In text organization the connective is used especially in the function of separating and adding. In combination with adverbial expressions of time an interruption in the course of the narration is emphasized. In an isolated position before another sentence begins, the connective stresses its independence and joins the following to the preceding parts of text. When introducing a new paragraph or even a new chapter the main connective makes use of all the possible functions it can fulfil, especially the function of addition and separation.

Another subtype of contrast is labeled as a Consessive Contrast. Here the addresser dissociates himor herself from the qualification in the first clause by making a sort of Concessive. The Connectivity Model allows an analyst to make specifications like these within a general category.

He is an adult, but he acts like a child.

He is a Democrat, but he is honest.

He can say that we are crazy, but we want to take the risk.

CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER III SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES WITH CONTRAST ACROSS VARIOUS DISCOURSE TYPES

There are significant differences between the processes in forming syntactic structures in the written and oral modes of speech. These differences deal with the conditions of producing either a written or an oral message. In forming of an oral and a written sentence one must use different contrastive connectives and place them in different positions. Contrastive connective though in the final position, for example, is typical for an oral utterance, while although in the opening position is typical in the written utterance.

Contrastive marker instead has two uses in the discourse: a pseudo-action and an actual-action use. Certain syntactic patterns with instead correspond to each use of the connective. Pseudo-action use of instead signals that the action in Sequence 1 didn’t occur and the action in Sequence 2 did occur. In the actual-action use of instead Sequence 1 specifies one action and Sequence 2 an alternative action.

Sequences may be combined in the declarative-declarative patterns or combinations of declarative, interrogative and imperative syntactic sequences.

Adversative contrast is illustrated by the most common English contrastive connective but. There are combinations of both assertive and negative sequences 1 and 2: X but Y X but not Y not X but Y not X but not Y.

Adversative contrast may be used for explanations (in short compound sentences, combination X but Y). Adversative contrast expressed by X but not Y draw the attention to the following parts of the connections and mark the opposition within the conceptual domain.

The form not X, but not Y has a very low frequency, only occurring as a sort of exception.

Other applications with adversative contrastive connective but include using contrastive lexical items in two sequences of the utterances. The most common cases are illustrated by adverbials of time.

Also propositional content of the two sequences may be contrasted. For example, modal aspects of the utterances may be contrasted in S1 and S2.

CONCLUSION

Language is at the centre of human; it plays a crucial part in the organization of social activities, from government through the workplace to the home. These complex tasks require complex language, and that requires syntax.

Often speakers have to express contrast in their speech. This research looked at the most common to express contrast in the English utterance: by means of the adversative contrastive connective but. Apart from that we have included in the research two basic uses of the common contrastive connective instead.

The research has shown that the varsity of the contrastive connectives connect the sequences within the utterance in a combinations of different ways. We have seen that contrastive connectives may occupy various positions in the utterance: initial (opening), medial or final.

We have surveyed a number of classic and modern syntactic theories: from Noam Chomsky’s generative grammar to the more recent developments of the linguistic grammar and syntax thought.

We have explored discourse markers of the English language with the special emphasis on the contrastive markers which present the main topic of this research.

So, this research presents an integrated approach to the study of contrastive relations in the language. This approach integrates the theories of grammar, syntax and discourse analysis.

LIST OF WORKS SITED

Aarts B. Syntactic Gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. — Oxford University Press, 2007. — 280 p.

Baker C.L. English Syntax. — MIT Press, 1995. — 647 p.

Brown E.K., Brown K., Miller J. Syntax: a linguistic introduction to sentence structure. — Routledge, 1991. — 382 p.

Brown E.K., Miller J.E. Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. — Pergamon, 1996. — 459 p.

Butler Ch., Downing R.H. et. al. Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse: in honour of Angela Downing. — John Benjamins, 2007. — 480 p.

Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures. — de Gruyter Mouton, 2002. — 117 p.

Dalrymple M. Semantics and syntax in lexical functional grammar: the resource logic approach. — MIT Press, 1999. — 399 p.

Fabb N. Sentence Structure. — Routledge, 1994. — 144 p.

Fraser B. Language in life and a life in language: Jacob Mey — a festschrift. — Emerald Group Publishing, 2009. — 629 p.

Givon T. Syntax: an Introduction. — John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001. — 406 p.

Grodner D., Gibson E., Watson D. The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension // D. Grodner et al. — Cognition 95 (2005) pp. 275−296.

Hakulinen A., Selting M. Syntax and lexis in conversation: studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. — John Benjamins, 2005. — 408 p.

Kako E., Wagner L. The semantics of syntactic structures // Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 3 2001, pp. 102−108.

Krohn R. English Sentence Structure. — University of Michigan Press, 1971. — 305 p.

McGilvray J.A. Chomsky: Language, Mind and Politics. — Wiley-Blackwell, 1999. — 274 p.

Miller J. An Introduction to English Syntax. — Edinburgh University Press, 2002. — 190 p.

Moravcsik E.A. An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. — Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006. — 263 p.

Payne T.E. Describing morphosyntax: a guide for field linguists. — Cambridge University Press, 1997. — 413 p.

Radford A. English Syntax: An Introduction. — Cambridge University Press, 2004. — 384 p.

Rauh G. Syntactic Categories: their identification and description in linguistic theories. — Oxford University Press, 2010. — 416 p.

Renkema J. The Texture of discourse: towards an outline of connectivity theory. — John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2009. — 213 p.

Rudolph E. Contrast: Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. — Walter de Gruyter, 1996. — 544 p.

Sampson G. Schools of Linguistics. — Stanford University Press, 1980. — 283 p.

Schonefeld D. Where Lexicon and Syntax Meet. — Walter de Gruyter, 2001. — 332 p.

Suomela-Salmi E., Dervin F. Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Discourse. — John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2009. — 299 p.

Thibault P.J. Re-reading Saussure: the dynamics of signs in social life. — Routledge, 1997. — 360 p.

Thomas L. Beginning Syntax. — Wiley-Blackwell, 1993. — 209 p.

Valin R. D van, LaPolla R.J. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. — Cambridge University Press, 1997. — 713 p.

Valin R.D. van An Introduction to Syntax. — Cambridge University Press, 2001. — 239 p.

Verspoor M, Sauter K. English Sentence Analysis: an introductory course. — John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000. — 245 p.

Wheeler Ch. English Sentence Structure: a Basic Guide. — Chandler Pub. Co, 1971. — 278 p.