The Ministry of Higher and Secondary Special Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Uzbek State World Languages University

COURSE PAPER 

The imperative sentences in English 

Done by: the student
of the group  # 214 
Mamadjanova F. 
Checked by: Gadjiyev L. D.

Tashkent 2005

Plan

1. The sentence as a unit of speech 

2. The revision of the previously existing grammars

3. The Imperative sentences in English

4. Bibliography 

1. The sentence as a unit of speech
	The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory. 
	The sentence, being composed of words, may in certain cases include only one word of various lexico-grammatical standing.

Cf.: Night. Congratulation. Away! Why? Certainly. 

The actual existence of one-word sentences, however, doesn’t contradict the general idea of the sentence as a special syntactic combination of words, the same as the notion of one-element set in mathematics doesn’t contradict the general idea of the set as a combination of certain elements. Moreover, this fact cannot lead even to the inference that under some circumstances the sentence and the word may wholly coincide: a word-sentence as a unit of the text is radically different from a word-lexeme as a unit of lexicon, the differentiation being inherent in the respective places occupied by the sentence and the word in the hierarchy of language levels. While the word is a component element of the word-stock and as such is a nominative unit of language, the sentence, linguistically, is a predicative utterance-unit. It means that the sentence not only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also, first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation, or, more specifically, a situational event, and second, reflects the connection between the nominal denotation of the event on the one hand, and objective reality on the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc. 

Cf.: I am satisfied, the experiment has succeeded. I would have been satisfied if the experiment had succeeded.  The experiment seems to have succeeded – why then I am not satisfied? 
Thus, event one uninflected word making up a sentence is thereby turned into an utterance-unit expressing the said semantic complex through its contextual and constitutional connections. By way of example, compare the different connections of the word-sentence “night” in the following passages:

1.	Night. Night and the boundless sea, under the eternal star-eyes shining with promise. Was it a dream of freedom coming true? 
2.	Night? Oh no. no night for me until I have  worked trough the case. 
3.	Night. It pays all the day’s debts. No cause for worry now, I tell you. 

Whereas the utterance “night” in the first of the given passages refer the event to the plane of reminiscences, the “night” of the second passage presents a question in argument connected with the situation wherein the interlocutors are immediately involved, while the latter passage features its “night” in the form of a proposition of reason in the flow of admonitions. 
It follows from this that there is another difference between the sentence and the word. Namely, unlike the word, the sentence doesn’t exist in the system of language as a  ready-made unit; with the exception of a limited number of utterances of phraseological citation, it is created by the speaker in the course of communication. Stressing this fact, linguists point out that the sentence, as different from the word, is not a unit of language proper; it is a chunk of text built up as a result of speech-making process, out of different units of language, first of all words, which are immediate means for making up contextually bound sentences, i.e. complete units of speech. 
It should be noted that this approach to the sentence, very consistently exposed in the works of the prominent scholar A.I. Smirnitsky, corresponds to the spirit of traditional grammar from the early epoch of its development. Traditional grammar has never regarded the sentence as part of the system of means of expression; it has always interpreted the sentence not as an implement for constructing speech, but as speech itself, i.e. a portion of coherent flow of words of one speaker containing a complete thought. 
Being a unit of speech, the sentence is intonationally delimited. Intonation separates one sentence from another in the continual flow of uttered segments and, together with various segmental means of expression, participates in rendering essential communicative-predicative meanings (such as, for instance, the syntactic meaning of interrogation in distinction to the meaning of declaration).  The role of intonation as a delimiting factor is especially important for sentences which have more than one predicative center, in particular more than one finite verb. 

Cf.: 1. The class was over, the noisy children filled the corridors. 
2. The class was over. The noisy children filled the corridors.  

Special intonation contours, including pause, represent the given speech sequence in the first case as one compound sentence, in the second case as two different sentences (though, certainly connected both logically and syntactically).  On the other hand, as we have stated elsewhere, the system of language proper taken separately, and the immediate functioning of this system in the process of intercourse, i.e. speech proper, present an actual unity and should be looked upon as the two sides of one dialectically complicated substance – the human language in the broad sense of the term. Within the framework of this unity the sentence itself, as a unit of communication, also presents the two different sides, inseparably connected with each other. Namely, within each sentence as an immediate speech element of the communication process, definite standard syntactico-semantic features are revealed which make up a typical model, a generalized pattern repeated in an indefinite number of actual utterance. 
This complicated predicative pattern does enter the system of language. It exists on its own level in the hierarchy of lingual segmental units in the capacity of a “linguistic sentence” and as such is studied by grammatical theory. 
Thus, the sentence is characterized by its specific category of predication which establishes the relation of the named phenomena to actual life. The general semantic category of modality is also defined by linguistic as exposing the connection between the named objects and surrounding reality.  However, modality, as different from predication, is not specifically confined to the sentence; this is a broader category revealed both in the grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. In this sense, every word expressing a definite correlation between the named substance and objective reality should be recognized as modal. Here belong such lexemes of full notional standing as “probability”, “desirability”, “necessity” and the like, together with all the derivational relevant words making up the corresponding series of the lexical paradigm of nomination; here belong semi-functional words and phrases of probability and existential evaluation, such as perhaps, may be, by all means, etc.; here belong further, word-particles of specifying modal semantics, such as just, even, would be, etc.;  here belong, finally, modal verbs expressing a broad range of modal meanings which are actually turned into elements of predicative semantics in concrete, contextually-bound utterance. As for predication proper, it embodies not any kind of modality, but only syntactic modality as the fundamental distinguishing feature of the sentence. It is the feature of predication, fully and explicitly expressed by a contextually relevant grammatical complex, that identifies the sentence in distinction to any other combination of words having a situational referent. 
The center of predication in a sentence of verbal type (which is the predominant type of sentence-structure in English) is a finite verb. The finite verb expresses essential predicative meanings by its categorical forms, first of all, the categories of tense and mood (the category of person, as we have seen before, reflects the corresponding category of the subject). However, proceeding from the principles of sentence analysis worked out in Russian school of theoretical syntax, in particular, in the classical treatises of V.V. Vinogradov, we insist that predication is effected not only by the forms of the finite verb connecting it with the subject, but also by all the other forms and elements of the sentence establishing the connection between the named objects and reality, including such means of expression as intonation, word order, different functional words. Besides the purely verbal categories, in the predicative semantics are included such syntactic sentence meanings as purpose of communication (declaration – interrogation - inducement), modal probability, affirmation and negation, and others, which, taken together, provide for the sentence to be identified on its own, proposemic level of lingual hierarchy. 
From what has been said about the category of predication, we see quite clearly that the general semantic content of the sentence is not at all reduced to predicative meanings only. Indeed, in order to establish the connection between some substance and reality, it is first necessary to name the substance itself. This latter task is effected in the sentence with the help of its nominative means. Hence, the sentence as a lingual unit performs not one, but two essential signemic (meaningful) functions: first, substance-naming, or nominative function; second, reality-evaluating, or predicative function. 
The terminological definition of sentence as a predicative gives prominence to the main feature distinguishing the sentence from the word among the meaningful lingual units (signemes). However, since every predication is effected upon a certain nomination as its material semantic base, we gain a more profound insight into the difference between the sentence and the word by pointing out the two-aspective meaningful nature of the sentence. The semantics of the sentence presents a unity of its nominative and predicative aspects, while the semantics of the word, in this sense, is monoaspective. 
Some linguists don’t accept the definition of the sentence trough predication, considering it to contain tautology, since, allegedly, it equates the sentence with predication (“the sentence is predication, predication is the sentence”). However, the identification of the two aspects of the sentence pointed out above shows that this negative attitude is wholly unjustified; the real content of the predicative interpretation of the sentence has nothing to do with definitions of the “vicious circle” type. In point of fact, as follows from the given exposition of predication, predicative meanings don’t exhaust the semantics of the sentence; on the contrary, they presuppose the presence in the sentence of meanings of quite another nature, which forms its deeper nominative basis, and as a result the actual utterance-sentence is finally produced. 
On the other hand, we must also note a profound difference between the nominative function of the sentence and the nominative function of the word. The nominative meaning of the syntagmatically complete average sentence (an ordinary proposemis nomination) reflects a processual situation or event that includes a certain process (actional or statal) as its dynamic center, the agent of the process, the objects of the process, and also the various conditions and circumstances of the realization of the process. This content of the prosemic event, as is known from school grammar, forms the basis of the traditional syntactic division of the sentence into its functional parts. In other words, the identification of traditional syntactic parts of the sentence is nothing else than the nominative division of the sentence. 

2. The revision of the previously existing grammars

There were two grammar theories which thought to teach how a sentence is generated. These are the Linear grammar and the Immediate Constituent grammar (IC grammar, phrase grammar). 
The linear theory taught that a sentence is generated on a very simple model consisting of three elements: S+V+O (sometimes P was used instead of V). this grammar may be traced in the Essentials of English Grammar by Otto Jespersen, it is also used in the Draft Syllabus of foreign languages. 
This model is quite familiar to the English teachers who begin their first lessons explaining that in the English sentence subject stands first, then it is followed by a verb (predicate) and then by any object. 
The linear theory (or model) is rather  trivial as  it has no power to generate different sentence structures but the simplest. 
It cannot even do this properly as it does not indicate the groupings of the sentence. What is meant is as follows:
It may be easy to fill in the word “John” in the S-position, or “took” in the V-position, because an NP, not a word must stand here, e.g. “a book”, or “my book”, etc. if a sentence is complex, the linear theory will fail to construct it although the sentence has but three elements: S-V-O and their groups of the constituents. 
It will be extremely difficult to teach to build up the sentence like “A dirtily clad old man with a long white beard jumped up suddenly and fell upon the younger man who was standing near the door which …” on the linear model because it doesn’t include the groupings. Besides, passive constructions, exclamatory sentences, negative or interrogative, will all need other models. The grammar will be too complicated to be grasped and held. 
The IC model is stronger than this because it shows rigid rules for the generating (including each phrase). 
The IC grammar says that each linguistic form is to be divided into two immediate constituents. Using this principle of the dichotomous division, we may work out rigid rules for generating (building up) sentences. 
The set of rules showing how a sentence is generated are called “rewrite rules” or “rewriting rules”. Below are the representative rewrite rules for the sentence. “The man hit the ball”. Each rule is numbered and the sign of the arrow means “rewrite”. 
1.	sentence – NP+VP
2.	NP – T+N (T is a determiner)
3.	VP – V+NP
4.	T – the 
5.	N – man, ball, etc.
6.	Verb – hit, took, etc. 

Given this set consisting of six rules, one can generate an English sentence or a number of sentences changing only the N and the transitive V, in accord with the situation he speaks about. 
The generation of the sentence must proceed with the change only one element at the application of each rule. The procedure of generating is as follows:
Applying rule 1 to Sentence, we shall get:
NP+VP
Applying rule 2, T+N+VP
Applying rule 3, T+N+VERB+NP
Applying rule 4, The + N + VERB + NP
Applying rule 5, The+ man + VERB + NP
Applying rule 6, The+ man+hit+NP; for the second NP the same rules are applied:
Applying rule 2, The+man+hit+T+N
Applying rule 4, The+man+hit+the+N
Applying rule 5, The+man+hit+the+ball

In this way a sentence may be generated in a very exact form. 
There is another representation of generation of a sentence on the basis of the IC grammar. This is the “derivation free” diagram, which is as follows:

Sentence

                                                
                                           NP                                         VP

                                  T                N                      V                      NP
       
                                   T                N                      V               T                N

                               The            man                    hit             the            ball              

The derivation tree diagram gives less information of how a sentence must be generated than the rewrite rules, because it does not show explicitly the order of the generation, trates the groupings of the IC and it shows the order in which the generating of a sentence must proceed. 
In spite of certain merits it is open to criticism. First, if the sentence is expanded, then the rewrite rules become too numerous to hold and the generation of the sentence hinders. 
The interrogative and passive sentence-structures must have different set of rules which are difficult or impossible to work out on the dichotomous scheme. 
There is another demerit in the IC model, the model cannot sometimes show that the relations between the elements of the two sentences are different, e.g. “John is easy to please” and “John is eager to please” have the same derivation tree showing the IC of the sentences:

                                                  S

                  NP                                                            VP

                    NP                                          be                                 AP

                    NP                                          be                       A                         V-to

                   John                                         is                   eager                   to please

3. The Imperative sentences in English 

With regard to the category of “presentation” English sentences divide into those that have “presentation” opposites and those which have not. Imperative sentences mostly belong to the latter subclass. In these sentences the opposeme of “presentation” is neutralized. The member of neutralization usually resembles that of “statement”. For instance:

Go to the blackboard. Let us begin. Look out!

But often it takes the form of the “interrogation” member, for example:

Would you mind holding your tongue?
Pass the salt, will you?
Isn’t she a beauty!

The imperative mood expresses a command or a request to perform an action addressed to somebody, but not the action itself. As it does not actually denote a specific action it has not tense category; the action always refers to the future. Aspect distinctions and voice distinctions are not characteristic of the imperative mood, although forms such as, be writing, be warned sometimes occur. 
The imperative mood form coincides with the plain stem of the verbs, for example:

Come here! Sit down. 

The negative form is built by means of the auxiliary do:
Do not take it away.
Don’t worry about the child.
Don’t be a fool. 

Do is also used in commands or requests to make them make emphatic:
Do come and stay with us.
Do be quiet.

The imperative mood is used only in imperative sentences and can’t be used in questions. 
The imperative mood expresses a command or a request. In modern English the Imperative Mood has only one form which coincides with the infinitive without the particle to, it is used in the second person (singular and plural).

Be quiet and hear what I tell you.
Please put the papers on the table by the bed. 

In forming the negative the auxiliary verbs to do is always used, even with the verb to be: 
Hush! Don’t make a noise!
Don’t be angry …. .

The auxiliary verbs to do may also be used in affirmative sentences to make the request more emphatic:
But now, do sing again to us. 

To make a request or an order more emphatic the subject expressed by the pronoun you is sometimes used. It is characteristic of colloquial speech:

I’ll drive and you sleep awhile. 

In commands and requests addressed to a third person or persons the analytical form let … + infinitive is used. When the person addressed is denoted by a personal pronoun, it is used in the objective case, for instance:

Let us go together.
Let him finish his dinner first.
Let Andrew do it himself.

In negative sentences the analytical forms take the particle not without an auxiliary:
Let us not argue on the matter.
Let him not overestimate his chances. 
Let her not go any further.

In sentences like Don’t let him go the negation refers to the verbs let, which in this case fully retains its original meaning from the synthetic forms, because their meaning is closely connected with the meaning of the pronoun included in the form. Thus let us do smth denotes an invitation to a joint action, not an order or a request. Let him do it retains to some extent the meaning of permission. 
In the form let me (let me do it) the first person singular does not convey any imperative meaning and should not therefore be regarded as the imperative. It conveys the meaning of I am eager to do it, allow me to do it.
A command addressed to the third person singular and plural is usually expressed with the help of the verb to let:

Let the child go home at once. 
Let the children go home at once. 

With the first person plural the verb to let is used to express an exhortation to a joint action:
Let’s go and have some fresh coffee. 

An imperative sentence serves to induce a person to do something, so it expresses a command, a request, an invitation, etc. 
Commands are characterized by a falling tone:

Come to the blackboard! 
Stop talking! 

Requests and invitations are characteristic by a rising intonation:
Open the door, please!
Do come to see me tomorrow.

Bibliography

1.Bach E. «An introduction to transformational English grammar». N. Y. 1964.
2.Bloomfield L. Language. N-Y. 1933
3.Bloch M. Y. A theoretical English grammar. M. 1983
4.Bradley J. «The making of English» London 1937.
5.Caroll J. B. «The study of language» Cambridge University press. 1955.
6.Chomsky N. Aspects of syntactic theory. M. 1965
7.Chomsky N. Syntactical structures. MIT. 1957
8.Chomsky N. Language and mind. M. 1972
9.Dolezel, Lubomir. «The typology of the narrator» The Hague 1967.
10.Haimovich B. A., Rogovskays B. S. A course in English grammar. M. 1967
11.Irtenyeva N.F. A theoretical English Grammar. M. 1969
12.Ilyish B. A. Structure of Modern English. L. 1974
13.Jespersten O. A grammar of the English language on historical principles. L. 1953
14.Khlebnikova I.V. A theoretical English grammar. M. 1981
15.Kobrina N. A. and others. «An English grammar» Morphology.
Moscow 1985.
16.Kaushanskaya V. A. and others. «A grammar of the English language».   
Moscow 1973.
17.Milic, Louis T. «Style and Stylistics» N. Y. 1967.
18.Palmer H. «A grammar of English words» London 1961.
19.Quirk, Randolf. «The use of English». London 1962.
20.Wrenn, C. L. «The English language» London 1949.