Languages & Linguistics
Types of Sentence
In linguistics, sentences can be classified into four main types: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory. Declarative sentences make statements, interrogative sentences ask questions, imperative sentences give commands or make requests, and exclamatory sentences express strong emotions or feelings. Understanding the different types of sentences is essential for effective communication and language comprehension.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
9 Key excerpts on "Types of Sentence"
- Anders Holmberg, Urpo Nikanne, Anders Holmberg, Urpo Nikanne(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The idea is that the Sentence Types of each language are made up of features and categories drawn from a finite, universal set of grammatical features and categories, at least some of which are optional, and which may occur in various combinations. Thus Sentence Types of various languages are composed of the same elements, but in different combinations. The following properties characterize the notion Sentence Type, as used in this article: First, a Sentence Type represents basic syntactic properties and relations, independent of semantic content. When talking of 'constituents' of a sentence we mean that the items concerned are felt to belong together. Their togetherness in part arises from syntactic interdependence or concomitance of given features which is independent of the semantic content or actual context of the utterance. Second, a Sentence Type represents a simple sentence (the assumption being that simple sentences are the building blocks of complex sentences). When we exemplify a Sentence Type, we do so by a simple sentence, where the lexemes have a concrete meaning, and the constituents are morphologically simple. The verb is preferably given in the indicative, third person singular, active, affirmative. Furthermore, the sentence will be non-elliptic, and will contain strictly obligatory constituents. Third, the core structures represented by simple sentences are not minimal sentences. The Sentence Types represent typical combinations of features. For our present purpose we assume that the core structure consists of a verb and two NPs. The categories V and NP are regarded as universal and their interdependence (or some form of it) is taken for granted. 1.3. Preliminary Definition of Sentence Type The Sentence Type, as used in this article, may be given by the preliminary formula: (1) NP + V + NP This sentence prototype will be the operational definition of Sentence Type until later (section 3). However, such details as which parts of speech may take
eBook - PDFWorking with English Grammar
An Introduction
- Louise Cummings(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Sentences 7 7.1 Introduction to Sentences At the top of any grammatical hierarchy is the sentence. While linguistic utterances short of complete sentences are certainly meaningful, it is through sentences that we convey propositional meaning. Consider the following exchange between two language users, A and B: A: Would you like tea or coffee? B: Tea, please B has certainly succeeded in communicating that he or she would like tea, even though an utterance which is short of a complete sentence has been produced. However, if we think a bit further about this exchange, we can see that B’s utter- ance only works as a response to A’s question because a full sentence (I would like tea) can be assumed in this case. B is using A’s prior utterance as background to LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following: • Describe the structure and function of four Types of Sentence in English: declarative; interrogative; imperative; and exclamative. • Be aware that sentence function does not always correspond to sentence structure. The same sentence structure may perform different functions and a single function may be performed by different sentence structures. • Recognise the typical or standard function of all four Types of Sentence – for example, that declaratives are used to make statements and that interrogatives are used to ask questions. • Be aware that there are a range of other functions of sentences beyond these typical functions – for example, that as well as making statements, declaratives may be used to ask questions, and to make threats and promises. • Understand that grammar cannot operate in isolation of pragmatics on the issue of sentence function. Sentences 256 his or her utterance, and has used grammatical ellipsis in response. The key point to take away from this exchange is that a full sentence can be assumed even though it has not been explicitly stated.
eBook - PDFForm and Function in Language Research
Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann
- Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas, Elisabeth Verhoeven, Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas, Elisabeth Verhoeven(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
The sim-plest or the one which can be shared by all linguists is that syntax is the study of “how words group together to make phrases and sentences” (Tallerman 1998: 1). Generally the definition also points out that the aims of syntax are “to discover the common properties between languages, and .. ultimately to discover something about the workings of the human brain” (Tallerman 1998: 6). The first part of the above definition implies that when doing syntax we basically ask the following questions: (1) What is a sentence? (2) What are the elements of a sentence? We can find more or less articulated replies to question (1) depending on the theoretical approach; one distinguishing trait between different theo-ries is related to whether we assume a sentence to be connected to the utter-ance or not, that is whether we have a functional perspective - according to which a sentence must be a meaningful unit in discourse - or whether we stick to a formal definition of a sentence in terms of grammaticality judg-ments, as in generative grammar. The more radical differences are certainly to be found in answer to (2) not so much in terms of the nature of syntactic constituents as both functionalists and formalists would agree in consider-ing noun phrases, verb phrases and so on as sentence constituents, but more in terms of its subcomponents. Let us have a look, for example, at Van Valin’s and LaPolla’s (1997: 1) definition of syntax: “the branch of gram-mar dealing with the ways in which words, with or without appropriate inflections, are arranged to show connections of meaning within the sen-tence”; here we find an explicit mention to morphology as this “can be used Linguistic typology and language theory 169 to express ‘who is doing what to whom’ in some languages, while word order does this in others and accordingly the cross-linguistic study of syn-tax cannot be carried out without paying serious attention to morphology” (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 2).
eBook - PDF- Tasaku Tsunoda(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
See 4.8.5[5] for some discussion. So far we have looked at negative sentences. All other sentences are affirma tive sentences. 4.2.3. Sentence types (3): simple and complex sentences A simple sentence consists of just one clause. Many examples have already been given. A complex sentence consists of two (or possibly more) clauses. The following Types of clauses 325 types of complex sentences may be recognized: (i) purposive subordination (‘so that … may’, etc.) (4.8), (ii) subordination with the enclitic =ngomay ‘after, if, be cause’ (4.10), (iii) participial subordination (‘when’, etc.) (4.15), (iv) apprehensional construction (‘lest … should’) (4.17), (v) ‘X is afraid that …’ (4.18.1), (vi) ‘X is glad that …’ (4.18.2), (vii) ‘X knows that …’ (4.18.3), (viii) ‘X sees/hears Y doing …’ (4.18.4), (ix) ‘X tells/asks Y …’ (4.18.5), and (x) ‘if/when’ (4.18.6.2). 4.3. Types of clauses Clauses may be classified as follows. (a) Intransitive and transitive clauses (4.3.1). (b) Basic and derived clauses (4.3.2). (c) Oneplace, twoplace, and threeplace clauses (4.3.3). The classifications of (a) and (c) do not coincide with each other. See 4.3.3.4[1]. These classifications of clauses concern nonelliptical ones. However, Warrongo discourse is highly elliptical (4.1), and many examples given below are elliptical; it is often difficult to provide nonelliptical examples. 4.3.1. Clause types (1): intransitive and transitive clauses This classification – of nonelliptical clauses – is as follows. (a) Intransitive clauses: (a1) NOM(S) Vi. (This type contains an intransitive verb.) (a2) NOM(S) plus some other word(s). (This type is a socalled verbless clause. It lacks a verb.) (b) Transitive clauses: ERG(A) (ACC(O)) Vt. Intransitive clauses contain a NOM NP for the ‘intransitive subject’ (‘S’). (They may contain some other words.) Some of the verbless clauses ((a2)) may be considered elliptical, with the verb understood.
eBook - PDF- Nicolas Ruytenbeek(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
2 The Semantics of Sentence-Types 2.1 INTRODUCTION While literalist accounts of ISAs provide a straightforward explanation of why imperative sentences give rise to the performance of directive SAs, they entail that any utterance having an illocutionary force that does not match the illocutionary potential of its sentence-type will be indirect or non-literal. The purpose of this chapter is to examine, instead, which features of the three main English sentence-types make these sentence-types compatible with the performance of (indirect) SAs. To do this, I will mainly be concerned with formal approaches to indirect communication. I will address, separately, the semantics of imperatives (Section 2.2), the semantics of interrogatives (Section 2.3) and the semantics of declaratives (Section 2.4). Unlike imperatives, a central feature of English interrogative sentences is that they can be conceived of as lying along with declaratives on a cline of informative- ness. I will assume a semantic analysis of interrogative sentences that explains why they are used in the performance of direct requests for information and also why some of them can be used as indirect requests for action and rhetorical questions. Obligation declaratives You should/must VP used as directives will also be dealt with in Section 2.4, where I will draw a parallel between the imperative sen- tence-type and these obligation declaratives. 2.2 IMPERATIVES 2.2.1 Neo-Literalist Approaches to Imperatives In the previous chapter I discussed ‘weak literalist’ approaches to ISAs, where SA types are defined in reference to the sentence-types typically associated with them. In line with ‘strong literalist’ accounts of ISAs, such as generative semantics and SAT, several scholars assume a 43 biunivocal relationship between sentence-types and speech act types. In the case of the imperative sentence-type, for instance, they propose that requests for action performed with non-imperative sentences are indirect.
eBook - PDFLinguistic Analysis
From Data to Theory
- Annarita Puglielli, Mara Frascarelli(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
6. The sentence as utterance 6.1. Discourse grammar and information structure In the previous chapters we discussed the lexical and functional categories needed to describe languages in their universal features and cross-linguistic variation. Furthermore, we showed some aspects of the interaction between lexical semantics and syntactic structure (VP area) and between morphology and syntax (IP area). As we know, however, there is another domain of analysis in the representation of sentential structure in X' terms (Chapter 1, § 1.2.3.), i.e. the CP, where the interface between syntax and pragmatics takes place. This is the topic of this chapter. This interaction will be discussed both in terms of the communicative function of each sentence within the discourse context and, more broadly, from the point of view of information structure, i.e. the way in which constituents are located in the sentence to meet specific discourse requirements. We will therefore study the mechanisms and strategies used by languages for pragmatic and communicative purposes. As usual, we will focus on those aspects which are significant at the interface levels, i.e. phonology (prosody and intonation), morphology and syntax. Our objective will again be to show how universal mechanisms take different forms in typologically different languages, while at the same time the number of possible options remains limited. 6.2. Speech acts Let us begin our discussion on the communicative function of utterances by considering the following sentences: (1) Jim is leaving tomorrow. (2) Is Jim leaving tomorrow? (3) Jim, leave tomorrow! The sentence as utterance 220 Though similar, these utterances are clearly used “to do different things” in discourse (see Austin 1962, Searle 1969) and their semantic-pragmatic value reflects their distinct discourse functions.
- László Dezsö, Imre Gombos, Béla Hollósy, Imre Gombos, Béla Hollósy(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
From the point of view of Klimov's types it is important to note the impact of noun classes on various sentence structures, on the classification of the parts of sentence. The local prefixes or pre-prefixes form special sentence structures which are characteristic of class type. Whiteley paid much attention to groups of verbal radicals which are or can be used with various kinds of objects but I could not examine them because this would go beyond the scope of my study. The class type has criteria which are not treated in Klimov's proposal because they are relevant to the formation of complex sentences. The subordinate clauses are formed by the help of the relative variants of class prefixes infixed in the verb (Whiteley 1966, 113). Lisimba WtwáWweeni lila lyékúlúngwa. 'The lion which we saw was large.' This raises the problem of the possibility of including compound sentences and non-finite constructions in the classification. They figure among the criteria of Skalicka's complex types (Cf. Skalicka 1974) and would complete Klimov's proposal. Basic Sentence Structure 47 Nominative Type: General Characteristics The derivation of sentence structures from a base structure consisting of a verbal predicate, a subject and an object is governed by two principles of morphological marking. 1. The features of the predicate are reflected in the form of the subject in active languages and ergative languages by case suffixes or verbal affixes. They can be considered as subject-marking languages. 2. An opposite principle is at work in nominative languages, they do not mark the subject but they do mark the object instead. Since morphological marking is not universal, there are languages neutral from this point of view. They belong to the neutral type in Klimov's classification. The ergative and nominative types can be classified into sub-types according to the impact of determination and aspectuality.
eBook - PDFLinguistics of American Sign Language, 5th Ed.
An Introduction
- Clayton Valli, Ceil Lucas, Kristin J. Mulrooney, Miako Villanueva(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Gallaudet University Press(Publisher)
But just because they make mistakes does not mean that they do not know the rules. There is a difference between a user’s competence in a language and a user’s per- formance in a language. Competence is what a person knows about the language and performance is how the person uses the language. One part of a user’s compe- tence is knowledge of the rules for making sentences, or the syntax of the language. It is important to recognize that theories about syntactic structure are continu- ally developing and evolving. The most currently cited theories include transfor- mational generative grammar (Chomsky 1965, 1981), cognitive grammar (Langacker 1987, 2008), and functional grammar (Dik 1978). The discussion of ASL syntax in this book is based on the work of Scott Liddell (1980, 2003). 90 Syntax We will start our exploration of syntax with a discussion of the basic sentence types that occur in ASL. Once we have an overall understanding of the ways that sentences are structured, we can take a closer look at the syntactic features that are unique to ASL. The grammatical rules for how signs combine to create sentences are often based on the category of the individual lexical items, so we will introduce lexical categories in unit 16, and then consider the order in which these elements combine to form grammatical sentences in unit 17. Later units will discuss aspect and verb types, and we will conclude this part with a discussion of the many func- tions of space in ASL, which ties together examples from phonology, morphology, and syntax. References Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications. Dik, S. C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ———. 2008.
eBook - PDFModality in Germanic Languages
Historical and Comparative Perspectives
- Toril Swan, Olaf J. Westvik, Toril Swan, Olaf J. Westvik(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
In gram-mars, they often are treated as a sentence type of their own. In this paper, I will concentrate on exclamatives. In principle, however, the explanation offered applies to other expressive types as well (see Ro-sengren 1992 and 1993). It is my aim to show that the function of exclamatives is the result of the cooperation between, on one hand, grammar and, on the other, pragmatics. I will argue that the above utterances are (mostly positive^ declaratives or negative interrogatives. They obtain their exclamatory function through an inference process, triggered by the sentence type, the propositional content and emphatic stress, resulting in a generalized implicature. Further, I will try to explain why they cannot constitute a sentence type of their own and at the same time be expressive sentences, in other words, why this would be a contradiction in terms. Finally, I will main-tain that exclamations differ from standard illocutions in not being speech acts in the strict sense of the term but instead emotional expres-sions. The paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2, I will de-scribe the syntactic structure of exclamatives in the four languages under investigation (English, Swedish, German, and French) and discuss the different proposals as to their explanation. It will be shown that exclama-tives exhibit astonishing structural similarities in all the languages. The investigation will support the assumption that exclamatives do not con-stitute a sentence type of their own but are declaratives and interroga-tives. In Section 3, I will discuss how their function may be derived from their grammatical structure, and, finally, in Section 4 I will consider their pragmatic status. 2. The syntactic structure of exclamatives It is a well known fact that, unlike declaratives and interrogatives, excla-matives do not have a syntactic clause structure of their own.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
