Formal Logical Modeling of Impersonal Sentences in the English Language

Introduction. The main feature of a sentence is the predicative connection. The two main units – substantive and verbal – are represented in the sentence either through separate words – subject and predicate – or synthetically in one of the parts of the sentence. The question whether subject and predicate play equal part in a sentence remains to be clarified since there are strong arguments in support of every position. The case of impersonal constructions is especially intriguing. So, in English one can find impersonal constructions, which, at first glance, lack a subject.

Methodology and sources. The present study aims to provide formal logical modeling of English independent clause with impersonal constructions based on active and passive verb, by means of the binomiality idea. In cases when a sentence begins not from the main couple, some of the passive constructions express the subject partially or don’t express it at all. The binomiality idea claims the existence of an implicit subject, as well as semi-implicit subject that includes a desemantised adverb there, thus, it explains these cases in the fullest way possible. 

Results and discussion. The formal logical modeling allows concluding that grammar-wise an impersonal construction is a personal one. A predicate with an active verb is accompanied by an explicit subject. In case a sentence starts from the main couple, a predicate with a passive verb can be accompanied by an explicit and (less often) semi-implicit subject, for the membrane of a passive verbal semifinitive is less relief, than the membrane of an active verbal semifinitive and can be subject to pressure from the strong space specifier. If a sentence does not begin with the main couple, then an implicit subject, as well as semiimplicit and explicit ones are possible. In declarative sentences, the implicity of a subject is provided by a strengthening element, whilst in question sentences it is done by a questioning one. Therefore, the weak space specifier cannot be used in declarative sentences, whilst in questioning sentences the strong space specifier is substituted by the weak one.

Conclusion. In cases with desemantised pronoun it or desemantised adverb there the term “impersonal construction” is only reasonable in a semantic sense, but not in a grammar one. Grammar-wise the singular third person is set in all cases – through an explicit or implicit substantive semifinitive and a space specifier. At the same time a semi-implicit subject can be seen quite rarely, whilst an implicit one – very rarely. Ellipsis of subject in English impersonal constructions is impossible.

1. Vinogradov, V.V. (1978), Istoriya russkikh lingvisticheskikh uchenii [History of Russian linguistic theories], Vysshaya shkola, Moscow, USSR.

2. Smirnitskii, A.I. (1957), Sintaksis angliiskogo yazyka [Syntax of the English language], Publishing house of literature in foreign languages, Moscow, USSR.

3. Meshchaninov, I.I. (1978), Chleny predlozheniya i chasti rechi [Members of sentence and parts of speech], Nauka, Leningrad, USSR.

4. Barkhudarov, L.S. (2008), Struktura prostogo predlozheniya sovremennogo angliiskogo yazyka [The structure of a simple sentence in modern English], LKI Publishing House, Moscow, RUS.

5. Baker, M.K. (2008), Atoms of Language: The Mind’s Hidden Rules of Grammar, Transl. by V. V. Kadin, et. al.; Mitrenina, O.V. and Mitrofanova, O.A. (eds.), LKI Publishing House, Moscow, RUS.

6. Bally, Ch. (2003), Le langage et la vie, Transl. by Chelysheva, I.I. and Vel'mezova, E.A., Editorial URSS, Moscow, RUS.

7. Jespersen, O. (2006), The Philosophy of Grammar, Transl. by Passek, V.V. and Safronova, S.P., KomKniga, Moscow, RUS.

8. Finogina, L.N. (1982), “Functioning and grammatical status of the lexeme it in modern English”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Odessa, USSR.

9. Katsnelson, S.D. (1972), Tipologiya yazyka i rechevoe myshlenie [Typology of language and speech thinking], Nauka, Leningrad, USSR.

10. Bakareva, A.P. (1981), “On the question of sentence structure as a means of communica-tion between sentences in superphrasal unity (based on modern English)”, Abstract of Can. Sci. (Philology) dissertation, Moscow, USSR.

11. Meillet, A. (1938), Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes, Transl. by. Kudryavskii, D. and Sukhotin, A., Gos. sots.-ekhon. izd-vo, Moscow, Leningrad, USSR.

12. Ilyish, B.A. (1968), Istoriya angliiskogo yazyka [History of the English language], Vysshaya shkola, Moscow, USSR.