Article.

Viktoriya Andrushchenko

DOI 10.31558/1815-3070.2019.37.12

УДК 81’42

SYNTACTIC-GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURING PATTERNS WITHIN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE BELLES-LETTRES STYLE TEXT COHERENT UNITY

Розглянуті особливості формального та семантичного компонування зв’язного художньотекстового утворення німецької мови, що представлені мовним виявом синтаксичних форм у рамах надфразних єдностей, забезпечуваних реалізацією паралельного внутрішньотекстового міжреченнєвого синтаксичного зв’язку. Коге­зійні засоби останнього визначено як типово-універсальні маркери паралельних граматичних форм структу­рування художньотекстових утворень із кваліфікуванням специфіки їхньої формалізації у німецькій мові.

Ключові слова: зв’язність, художньотекстове ціле, надфразна єдність, паралельні когезійні синтаксично-граматичні засоби, диференційні ознаки.

Background. The specificity of internal categorical-level belles-letters style text system research, its formal materialization and sense completion (V. Dressler, M. Halliday, I. Halperin, R. Hasan, O. Moskalskaya, E. Selivanova, H. Solhanіk, A. Zahnitko etc.) determined by a range of coherence category linguistic means realization (cohesion / coherence) due to intratextual interlinear syntactic links manifestation allow to define both structural and semantic peculiarities of cohesive belles-letters style text whole organization within a supra-phrasal unity (SPU).

As for SPU qualification as a basic text unit of our study we are inclined to specify it as a compressed scheme of a text whole represented either by a contact or distant combination of two and more independent sentences (introduction, development, ending), which, as a text itself, are characterized by a certain structural-semantic formation, sense-thematic completion and communicative-pragmatic integrity in reference to coherence category language devices realization.

Text, to our mind, should be characterized as a verbalized integral-complete leveled structural-semantic parameter of pragmatic-communicative nature organized by microthematic text units integration – SPUs, combined by explicit-implicit, syntagmatic-paradigmatic and syntactic-sense relations, that form a text whole macrotheme, activating an author’s intentional aim, – in regard with coherence category language markers horizontal-vertical representation (structural-formal cohesion and contensive-integral coherence dichotomy manifestation) as a prominent textual categorical characteristic correlated with the categories of integrity, segmentation and continuum.

Purpose. The made attempts of text structure analysis concerning its typical-differential grammatical devices establishment owing to parallel intratextual interlinear syntactic link (PITISL) representation avoid interpreting the latter as strong formal cohesive tools of the Germanic language text unity with focus on their specific functional сharacteristics, in German particularly.

The purpose of the current study appears to be typological-distinctive markers analysis of grammatical constituents formalization in a German belles-lettres style supra-phrasal text structural-horizontal model. The subject of the research turns out to be an integration of SPUs within the analyzed German language belles-lettres style text wholes, since typical linguistic cohesive means of PITISL realization within belles-lettres style text SPUs concentrate on their different formal expression in German. Hence, the task of the study lies in the necessity to identify parallel typical structural forms of grammatical coherence representation within a Germanic belles-lettres style text supra-phrasal unity with the specificity of its linguistic tools materialization in German.

The relevance of the issue under consideration is determined by a typological spectrum of the Germanic language parallel cohesive forms manifestation intensity in regard with their syntactic-grammatical peculiar features formalization within a German belles-lettres style text supra-phrasal unity – novels by H. Mann “Die kleine Stadt” and H. Hasse “Der Steppenwolf”.

Results. Consequently, the linguists R. Hasan and M. Halliday point out that cohesion is expressed partially by grammatical means (ellipsis, conjunction), partially by lexical means (reference, substitution, lexical cohesion) (Halliday 14) which range provides a certain text sense background.

Following I. Halperin’s formulation of the notion “cohesion” as special types of relations (Halperin 74–79), we, in our turn, suppose that text formation is determined by some intratextual interlinear syntactic links which manifestation may be examined on all text levels as a result of coherence category linguistic-semantic realization.

At that, H. Solhanіk among texts in accordance with syntactic interlinear ties characteristics distinguishes three types: 1) texts with a linear tie; 2) texts with a parallel tie; 3) texts with a conjoint tie (Solhanіk 85). A. Zahnitko differentiates a left-handed (a linear link – anaphora), right-handed link (a parallel link – cataphora), integrative-cumulative and coalition-implicit intra-textual interlinear links (Zahnitko 133).

In our research we have taken these scholars’ views (H. Solhanіk, A. Zahnitko) into account concerning intra­textual interlinear syntactic links classification into linear, parallel and integrative with an appropriate number of their linguistic means representation as prominent factors of belles-lettres style SPUs cohesive structuring. Though, the current study is mostly concentrated on parallel syntactic-grammatical coherence linguistic formalization represented by PITISL and its cohesive devices (CDs) typical-differential realization within the Germanic thematic-synchronic belles-lettres style text wholes.

The essence of a parallel intratextual interlinear syntactic link lies in similar forms interrelation of all sentence members or some of them between integrated contact sentences within a belles-lettres style supra-phrasal unity (Zahnitko 611–612). These are parallel constructions that provide text integrity and symmetry enhancing its cohesion and making it clearer for a reader’s perception. At that, the CDs of PITISL are as follows:

1. Syntactic parallelism:

du. Ach ja, ich kannte diese Erlebnisse, diese Wandlungen, die das Schicksal seinen Sorgenkindern, seinen heikelsten Kindern bestimmt hat, allzu gut kannte ich sie. Ich kannte sie, wie ein ehrgeiziger, aber erfolglosser Jäger die Etappen einer Jagdunternehmung, wie ein alter Börsenspieler die Etappen der Spekulation, des Gewinns, des Unsicherwerdens, des Wankens, des Bankerotts kennen mag (Hesse 90) (syntactic parallelism is expressed by identical grammatical repetition of the construction du. ich kannte ‘I knew’).

The distinctive characteristics of this CD grammatical representation within the German language SPUs are witnessed by:

1) the peculiarity of the past tense forms order (Imperfeкt, Perfeкt, Plusquamperfeкt) provided by the main verb second form (strong – a verb form with root vowel change / weak – a verb form with the suffix -te);

2) personal endings of verb forms interrelated with the subject not only in Präsents, but in other verb tense forms, since in the first and third person singular Imperfeкt verb forms cannot take place:

du. Er blieb stehen, er erhob langsam die gefalteten Hände. Seine Augen, die sich entschleierten, trafen den Schatten unter ihren Brauen. Einander gegenüber, schwiegen sie und blieben reglos (Mann 242) (du. er blieb stehen ‘he stopped’ – du. schwiegen sie und blieben reglos ‘kept silent they and stood still’);

3) one negation sentence structure with negation of action by means of a negative particle nicht ‘no (not)’ or subject, person and object by an indefinite negative article (an indefinite negative pronoun) kein in appropriate gender and case forms:

du. Renzo, der Gehilfe des Barbiers Bonometti, ließ seine kleine Bunte nicht aus den Armen, er wollte bei ihr bleiben und Sänger werden; er versuchte seinen Tenor zu zeigen und brachte vor Aufregung keinen Ton fertig. Die Freunde trösteten ihn; er solle ein Stück mitfahren; auch sie kämen; und sie holten ihre Räder (Mann 422) (du. ließ nicht aus den Armen ‘he did not let go out of his hands’ – du. brachte vor Aufregung keinen Ton fertig ‘because of being nervous he did not sing a note’);

4) grammatical repetitions of verb tense forms with detached / non-detached prefixes:

du. Durch die himmelhohen Fenster eines Saales warf sich, zwischen zwei Wolken, die es überjagten, ein kleines angstvolles Sternenlicht auf einen eingesunkenen Thron, zersprungene Bilder und ein weißes Profil, das dahingleitend, in einem Schreien ohne Laut, den Mund aufriß. Den Augen des Verfolgers entstürzten Tränen; vor Tränen sah er die nicht, die dicht vor ihm laut atmete, strauchelte, ein Fenster aufriß (Mann 242) (du. den Mund aufriß ‘opened her mouth’ – du. ein Fenster aufriß ‘opened the window’);

5) constructions with unreal comparisons represented by conjunction als ‘as’ + verb in one of Konjunktiv forms:

du. Don Taddeo war bleich, als sei er tot; seine scharfroten Augen wichen nie von dem Advokaten. Wenn eine Frau sich nach seiner Soutane bückte, um sie zu küssen, tat er eine rasche Wendung, sonst aber hielt er obwohl alle von ihm die Hände ließen, seine Schritte lange zurück, als wollte er diesen Gang verlängern, immer noch verlängern… (Mann 400) (du. als sei er tot ‘as if he were dead’ – du. als wollte er diesen Gang verlängern, immer noch verlängern ‘as if he wanted to walk slower’).

2. Linear homogeneity of verbs-predicates tense forms:

du. Die Primadonna Flora Garlinda reichte noch einmal die Hand aus dem Fenster, nach dem Schneider Chiaralunzi, der reglos dastand und sie ansah. Er stürzte vor, mit plötzlich verstörtem Gesicht; aber der Wagen rollte schon wieder, der Schneider verfehlte die Hand, er stolperte (Mann 423) (du. reichte die Hand ‘held her hand out’, du. dastand ‘stood there’, du. sie ansah ‘looked at her’, du. stürzte vor ‘sprang forward’, du. der Wagen rollte ‘the carriage drove off’, du. verfehlte die Hand ‘failed to grasp her hand’, du. stumbled ‘спіткнувся’).

The differential spectrum of the analyzed CD grammatical formalization within the German language SPU is provided with:

1) verb past tense forms (Imperfeкt, Perfeкt, Plusquamperfeкt), determined by the main verb second form (strong – a verb form with root vowel change / weak – a verb form with the suffix -te); 2) a personal verb form in adverbial subordinate clauses that is always last, since an impersonal one takes a next-to-last position:

du. Der Advokat, der ihr am nächsten stand, fuhr ein wenig zurück; und dann huldigte er der Primadonna um so ehrfurchtsvoller, je weniger er sie vorher beachtet hatte. Er fragte sie, ob sie schon in der Scala gesunken habe (Mann 23) (du. je weniger er sie vorher beachtet hatte ‘who he did not even notice at first’ – du. ob sie schon in der Scala gesunken habe ‘if she had already sung in La-Scala’), though, on condition that in adverbial subordinate clause there may be two infinitive forms, then a finite verb form precedes the latter:

du. Wie der Cavaliere sie einander nannte, sahen sie sich an. Der Musiker war auf einmal verstummt, die junge Sängerin sah aus, als gälte es; und die Hände, die sie sich hätten reichen sollen, noch in der Schwebe, traten beide ein wenig zurück (Mann 24) (du. die Hände, die sie sich hätten reichen sollen ‘their hands that they had to give for each other’s greeting’).

3. Anaphoric-inverse position of predicates in relation to subjects:

du. So ging sie, die erweiterten Augen geradeaus, vorüber. Auf der Schwelle zögerte sie, wandte sich um nach ihm: ihre Blicke fielen ineinander, unmerklich nickten ihre Lider sich zu (Mann 258) (du. ging sie ‘went she’, du. zögerte sie ‘went slower she’, du. nickten ihre Lider sich ‘quivered her eyelids’).

4. Lexical parallelism (anaphora):

du. Und dieses wunderbare Mädchen – wenn ich doch ihren Namen gewußt hätte! Plötzlich ein Mensch, ein lebendiger Mensch, der die trübe Glasglocke meiner Abgestorbenheit zerschlug und mir die Hand hereinstreckte, eine gute, schöne, warme Hand! Plötzlich wieder Dinge, die mich etwas angingen, an die ich mit Freude, mit Sorge, mit Spannung denken konnte! Plötzlich eine Türe offen, durch die das Leben zu mir hereinkam! (Hesse 132) (anaphoric lexeme repetition du. plötzlich ‘suddenly’).

The grammatical distinctive feature of this CD manifestation within the German language SPU turns out to be anaphoric parallelism marked both by lexemes and demonstrative-substitutive words at the beginning of the sentences.

5. Anaphoric and parallel rhetoric questions:

du. Wer gedachte noch jener kleinen, zähen Zypresse hoch am Berge über Gubbio, die von einem Steinsturz geknickt und gespalten war und doch das Leben festgehalten und einen neuen, spärlichen Notwipfel getrieben hatte? Wer ward der fleißigen Hausmutter im ersten Stock und ihrer blanken Araukarie gerecht? Wer las nachts überm Rhein die Wolkenschriften der ziehenden Nebel? Es war der Steppenwolf (Hesse 47) (anaphoric-rhetoric parallel constructions are introduced by an interrogative pronoun word du. wer ‘who’).

The special differential plane of this CD realization within a SPU of the German language is caused by its peculiar formalization. Consequently, grammatical structure of the analyzed unities in German represented by this CD proves analogical word order: question word + verb in corresponding tense form (within a sentence in German it takes the second place) + subject + secondary members of a sentence.

The analogical organization is traced within the Present Tense interrogative sentences in German on condition of a compound nominal predicate presence in their structure which obligatory constituent is expressed in writing by a link-verb du. sein ‘to be’ in its appropriate grammatical form.

6. Gerundial / participial constructions:

du. Um eine Ecke flatterte eine Rockfalte. Unter der Tür eines Zimmers erkannte er die dunkel fliehende Gestalt. Dort hinten, wo eine lange Galerie in Schatten zusammenfiel, spreizte eine unsicher schimmernde Hand sich beschwörend rückwärts (Mann 242) (du. fliehende Gestalt ‘the escaping figure’ – du. schimmernde Hand ‘the glimmering hand’).

The difference of this CD grammatical formalization within a German SPU lies in the presence of Partizip I (a verb infinitive + d + the ending of an adjective in correspondence with the article that indicates a case form of a noun); Partizip II (adding of the adjective inflectional ending to participle in reference to the article marked by an appropriate case noun form).

7. Incomplete syntactic constructions (ellipsis, parcelling, breaking, segmentation, contextual incompleteness etc.):

du. Auf der Schwelle zögerte sie, wandte sich um nach ihm: ihre Blicke fielen ineinander, unmerklich nickten ihre Lider sich zu. Der Priester schloß seine (Mann 258) (du. nickten ihre Lider sich ‘flinched her eyelids’ – du. schloß seine ‘closed his’).

As a result, there are some distinctive characteristics of specific realization of the analyzed CD within a German SPU: 1) a fixed direct word order of the Germanic languages sentences and their components with the impossibility of subject ellipsis, that is detachment of subject from predicate by different sentence structures within a SPU; 2) language structure in German predetermines impersonal constructions functioning: du. es war ‘it was’ in the Past Tense form when the element du. es ‘this’ implements an introductive function.

8. Formal components of enumeration:

du. Ich stand einen Augenblick schnuppernd, roch an der blutigen grellen Musik, witterte böse und lüstern die Atmosphäre dieser Säle. Die eine Hälfte dieser Musik, die lyrische, war schmalzig, überzuckert und troff von Sentimentalität, die andre Hälfte war wild, launisch und kraftvoll. Und doch gingen beide Hälften naiv und friedlich zusammen und gaben ein Ganzes (Hesse 49) (du. die eine Hälfte dieser Musik ‘one part of this music’ – du. die andre Hälfte ‘the other part’ – du. beide Hälften ‘both parts’).

The specificity of formal components of enumeration in German proves the constant functioning of the latter in combination with the definite articles du. der (die, das): die eine ‘оne’, die andre ‘the other’ etc.).

The intensity analysis of PITISL representation within SPUs (in number of 660 unities) of the Germanic language belles-lettres style text formations confirms that the most widespread markers of cohesion linguistic manifestation by means of PITISL realization are regarded to be incomplete syntactic constructions – 31 %, linear homogeneity of verbs-predicates tense forms – 25 %, syntactic parallelism – 19,5 %.

Thus, the made research qualifies all the CDs of PITISL as typical for both belles-lettres style text structures despite their being differentially formalized in German in terms of grammar and syntax.

Discussion. The coherence category realization analysis due to intratextual interlinear syntactic links and their language tools manifestation within belles-lettres style supra-phrasal fragments enables to define a universal model of cohesion category linguistic expression within the latter, interrelate cohesive grammatically formalized intensity of belles-lettres style text wholes organization as well as to identify cohesive devices specifically marked in this or that language. Therefore, the suggested scheme of belles-lettres style texts study allows to examine, on the one hand, a greater number of languages, and, on the other hand, such an approach to text internal structure analysis determines cohesive devices interpretation as functionally and informatively marked key language markers vertically correlated with each other and aimed at thematic-paradigmatic and covert-subtextual senses explication, which, in fact, appear to be coded by an author within a belles-lettres style text unity owing to coherence category linguistic representation.

All this, indeed, indicates one of text linguistics current issues and demands its immediate detailed analysis with rational approaches to its scientific interpretation.

References. 

References

1. Buitkiene, J. “Variability of Cohesive Devices across Registers.” Studies about Languages 7 (2005): 17–20. Print.

2. Ernst, P. Pragmalinguistik: Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Probleme. Berlin: New Yourk: de Gruyter, 2002. Print.

3. Fraser, B. “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics, V. 14 (1990): 219–236. Print.

4. Hadumod, B. “Kohärenz. Kohäsion.” Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Auflage Stuttgart: Kröner, 1990. 388–390. Print.

5. Halliday, M., and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976. Print.

6. Halperin, I. R. Tekst kak ob’jekt linhvisticheskoho issledovaniya. Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2004. Print.

7. Moskalskaya, O. I. Hrammatika teksta. Moskva: Vysshaya shkola, 1981. Print.

8. O’Grady, W., and Archibald, J., and Aronoff, M., and Rees-Miller, J. Contemporary Linguistics (an Introduction). USA: Bedford St. Martin’s: Boston–New-York, 2001. Print.

9. Price, C. J. “The functional anatomy of word comprehension and production.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (8) (1999): 281–288. Print.

10. Selivanova, O. O. Linhvistychna entsyklopediya. Poltava: Dovkillya-K, 2010. Print.

11. Solhanik, H. Ya. Stilistika teksta. Moskva: Flinta: Nauka, 2007. Print.

12. Widdowson, H. G. Linguistics. New-York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.

13. Zahnitko, Anatoliy. Linhvistika teksta: Teoriya i praktykum. Donetsk: OOO Yuho-Vostok Ltd, 2006. Print.

14. Zahnitko, A. P. Teoretychna hramatyka ukrayins’koyi movy. Syntaksys : monohrafiya. Donetsk : DonNU, 2001. Print.

15. Zahnitko, A. P. Ukrayinskiy syntaksys : navch.-praktychn. kompleks. Donetsk–Slov’yans’k: DonNU, 2010. Print.

List of Sources

1. Hesse, H. Der Steppenwolf. Germany: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000. Print.

2. Mann, H. Die kleine Stadt. Frankfurt: Fisher Taschenbuch Verlag, 2006. Print.