Автор: Пользователь скрыл имя, 04 Марта 2013 в 08:06, реферат
In Modern English, as well as in many other languages, verbal forms imply not only subtle shades of time distinction but serve for other purposes, too; they are also often marked for person and number, for mood, voice and aspect.
The grammatical categories of the English verb find their expression in synthetical and analytical forms. The formative elements expressing these categories are: grammatical affixes, inner inflection and function words. Some categories have only synthetical forms (person, number), others —only analytical (voice distinction). There are also categories expressed by both synthetical and analytical forms (mood, time, aspect).
Introduction 3
Chapter I. Verbs of general semantics in the English language 4
1.1 Phrasal verbs 4
1.2 Modal verbs 8
1.3 “Make” and “Get” as verbs of general semantics 14
Chapter II. Verbs of general semantics in the Russian language 19
2.1 Verbs of general semantics in the Russian language 19
2.2 “Бить” and “Брать” as verbs of general semantics 21
Conclusion 28
Bibliography 29
Contents:
Introduction 3
Chapter I. Verbs of general semantics in the English language 4
1.1 Phrasal verbs 4
1.2 Modal verbs 8
1.3 “Make” and “Get” as verbs of general semantics 14
Chapter II. Verbs of general semantics in the Russian language 19
2.1 Verbs of general semantics in the Russian language 19
2.2 “Бить” and “Брать” as verbs of general semantics 21
Conclusion 28
Bibliography 29
Introduction
The system of verb is rightly considered to be the most complex grammatical structure of the language. The most troublesome problems are, indeed, concentrated in the area of the finite verb, and include, in particular, questions tense, aspect and modal auxiliary usage. This seems to be an area of grammar which has always gained the greatest interest in language learning. We can say with little fear of exaggeration that learning a language is to a very large degree learning how to operate the verbal forms of that language.
In Modern English, as well as in many other languages, verbal forms imply not only subtle shades of time distinction but serve for other purposes, too; they are also often marked for person and number, for mood, voice and aspect.
The grammatical categories of the English verb find their expression in synthetical and analytical forms. The formative elements expressing these categories are: grammatical affixes, inner inflection and function words. Some categories have only synthetical forms (person, number), others —only analytical (voice distinction). There are also categories expressed by both synthetical and analytical forms (mood, time, aspect).
The topicality of the course paper is in the fact that the theme is very interesting and actual for today youth, who deals with English language, linguistic and is interested in English grammar.
The main aim of the course paper is to tell about the verb of general semantics in the English and Russian languages. There are the following tasks to reach the given aim:
The course paper consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion and bibliography.
Chapter I. Verbs of general semantics in the English language
1.1 Phrasal verbs
The term phrasal verb is commonly applied to two or three distinct but related constructions in English: a verb and a particle and/or a preposition co-occur forming a single semantic unit. This semantic unit cannot be understood based upon the meanings of the individual parts in isolation, but rather it must be taken as a whole. In other words, the meaning is non-compositional and thus unpredictable. Phrasal verbs that include a preposition are known as prepositional verbs and phrasal verbs that include a particle are also known as particle verbs. Additional alternative terms for phrasal verb are compound verb, verb-adverb combination, verb-particle construction, two-part word/verb, and three-part word/verb (depending on the number of particles), and multi-word verb.
One can discern at least three main types of phrasal verb constructions depending upon whether the verb combines with a preposition, a particle, or both. The words constituting the phrasal verb constructions in the following examples are in bold:
Verb + preposition (prepositional phrasal verbs)
a. Who is looking after the kids? - after is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase after the kids.
b. They pick on Billy. - on is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase on Billy.
c. I ran into an old friend. - into is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase into an old friend.
d. She takes after her mother. - after is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase after her mother.
e. Sam passes for a linguist. - for is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase for a linguist.
f. You should stand by your friend. - by is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase by your friend.
Verb + particle (particle phrasal verbs)
a. They brought that up twice. - up is a particle, not a preposition.
b. You should think it over. - over is a particle, not a preposition.
c. Why does he always dress down? - down is a particle, not a preposition.
d. You should not give in so quickly. in is a particle, not a preposition.
e. Where do they want to hang out? - out is a particle, not a preposition.
f. She handed it in. - in is a particle, not a preposition.
Verb + particle + preposition (particle-prepositional phrasal verbs)
a. Who can put up with that? - up is a particle and with is a preposition.
b. She is looking forward to a rest. - forward is a particle and to is a preposition.
c. The other tanks were bearing down on my panther. - down is a particle and on is a preposition.
d. They were really teeing off on me. - off is a particle and on is a preposition.
e. We loaded up on Mountain Dew and chips. - up is a particle and on is a preposition
f. Susan has been sitting in for me. - in is a particle and for is a preposition.
The difference between these types of phrasal verbs lies with the status of the element(s) that appear in addition to the verb. When the element is a preposition, it is the head of a full prepositional phrase and the phrasal verb is a thus a prepositional phrasal verb. When the element is a particle, it can not (or no longer) be construed as a preposition, but rather it is a particle by virtue of the fact that it does not take a complement. Finally, many phrasal verbs are combined with both a preposition and a particle.
The aspect of these types of phrasal verbs that unifies them under the single banner phrasal verb is the fact that their meaning cannot be understood based upon the meaning of their parts taken in isolation. When one picks on someone, one is not selecting that person for something, but rather one is harassing them. When one hangs out, one is in no way actually hanging from anything. The meaning of the two or more words together is often drastically different from what one might guess it to be based upon the meanings of the individual parts in isolation.
As a class, particle phrasal verbs belong to the same category as the so-called separable verbs of other Germanic languages. They are commonly found in everyday, informal speech as opposed to more formal English and Latinate verbs, such as to get together rather than to congregate, to put off rather than to postpone (or to deter), or to do up rather than to fasten.
The terminology of phrasal verbs is inconsistent. Modern theories of syntax tend to use the term phrasal verb to denote particle verbs only; they do not view prepositional verbs as phrasal verbs. The ESL literature (English as a second language), in contrast, tends to employ the term phrasal verb to encompass both prepositional and particle verbs. The terminology used to denote the particle is also inconsistent. Sometimes it is called an adverb, and at other times an intransitive prepositional phrase. The inconsistent use of terminology in these areas is a source of confusion about what does and does not qualify as a phrasal verb and about the status of the particle.
Concerning the history of the term phrasal verb, Tom McArthur writes:
"...the term phrasal verb was first used by Logan Pearsall Smith, in Words and Idioms (1925), in which he states that the OED Editor Henry Bradley suggested the term to him."
The value of this choice and its alternatives (including separable verb for Germanic languages) is debatable. In origin the concept is based on translation linguistics; as many single-word English and Latinate words are translatable by a phrasal verb complex in English, therefore the logic is that the phrasal verb complex must be a complete semantic unit in itself. One should consider in this regard that the the actual term phrasal verb suggests that such constructions should form phrases. In most cases however, they clearly do NOT form phrases. Hence the very term phrasal verb is misleading and a source of confusion, which has motivated some to reject the term outright. The term is nevertheless employed here because that is what the underlying constructions are commonly called in linguistics and language pedagogy in general 1.
Phrasal verbs of general semantics
1.2 Modal verbs
A modal verb (also modal, modal auxiliary verb, modal auxiliary) is a type of auxiliary verb that is used to indicate modality – that is, likelihood, ability, permission, and obligation. Examples include the English verbs can, must and should.
In English and other Germanic languages, modal verbs are often distinguished as a class based on certain of their grammatical properties.
A modal auxiliary verb gives more information about the function of the main verb that it governs. Modals have a wide variety of communicative functions, but these functions can generally be related to a scale ranging from possibility ("may") to necessity ("must"), in terms of one of the following types of modality:
The following sentences illustrate epistemic and deontic uses of the English modal verb must:
An ambiguous case is You must speak Spanish. This may be intended epistemically ("It is surely the case that you speak Spanish", e.g. after having lived in Spain for a long time), or deontically ("It is a requirement that you speak Spanish", e.g. if you want to get a job in Spain).
Epistemic modals can be analyzed as raising verbs, while deontic modals can be analyzed as control verbs.
Epistemic usages of modals tend to develop from deontic usages. For example, the inferred certainty sense of English must developed after the strong obligation sense; the probabilistic sense of should developed after the weak obligation sense; and the possibility senses of may and can developed later than the permission or ability sense. Two typical sequences of evolution of modal meanings are:
Modal verbs of general semantics
Can and could
The modal verb can expresses possibility in either a dynamic, deontic or epistemic sense, that is, in terms of innate ability, permissibility, or possible circumstance. For example:
I can speak English means "I am able to speak English" or "I know how to speak English".
You can smoke here means "you may (are permitted to) smoke here" (in formal English may or might is sometimes considered more correct than can or could in these senses).
There can be strong rivalry between siblings means that such rivalry is possible.
The preterite form could is used as the past tense or conditional form of can in the above meanings (see Past forms above). It is also used to express possible circumstance: We could be in trouble here. It is preferable to use could, may or might rather than can when expressing possible circumstance in a particular situation (as opposed to the general case, as in the "rivalry" example above, where can or may is used).
Both can and could can be used to make requests: Can/could you pass me the cheese? means "Please pass me the cheese" (where could indicates greater politeness).
It is common to use can with verbs of perception such as see, hear, etc., as in I can see a tree. Aspectual distinctions can be made, such as I could see it (ongoing state) vs. I saw it (event).
The use of could with the perfect infinitive expresses past ability or possibility, either in some counterfactual circumstance (I could have told him if I had seen him), or in some real circumstance where the act in question was not in fact realized: I could have told him yesterday (but in fact I didn't). The use of can with the perfect infinitive, can have..., is a rarer alternative to may have... (for the negative see below).
The negation of can is the single word cannot, only occasionally written separately as "can not". Its contracted form is can't (pronounced /kɑːnt/ in RP and some other dialects). The negation of could is the regular could not, contracted to couldn't.
The negative forms reverse the meaning of the modal (to express inability, impermissibility or impossibliity). This differs from the case with may or might used to express possibility: it can't be true has a different meaning than it may not be true. Thus can't (or cannot) is often used to express disbelief in the possibility of something, as must expresses belief in the certainty of something. When the circumstance in question refers to the past, the form with the perfect infinitive is used: he can't (cannot) have done it means "I believe it impossible that he did it" (compare he must have done it).
Occasionally not is applied to the infinitive rather than to the modal (stress would then be applied to make the meaning clear): I could not do that, but I'm going to do it anyway.
May and might
The verb may expresses possibility in either an epistemic or deontic sense, that is, in terms of possible circumstance or permissibility. For example:
The mouse may be dead means that it is possible that the mouse is dead.
You may leave the room means that the listener is permitted to leave the room.
In expressing possible circumstance, may can have future as well as present reference (he may arrive means that it is possible that he will arrive; I may go to the mall means that I am considering going to the mall).
The preterite form might is used as a synonym for may when expressing possible circumstance (as can could – see above). It is sometimes said that might and could express a greater degree of doubt than may. For uses of might in conditional sentences, and as a past equivalent to may in such contexts as indirect speech, see Past forms above.
May (or might) can also express irrelevance in spite of certain or likely truth: He may be taller than I am, but he is certainly not stronger could mean "While it is (or may be) true that he is taller than I am, that does not make a difference, as he is certainly not stronger."
May can indicate presently given permission for present or future actions: You may go now. Might used in this way is milder: You might go now if you feel like it. Similarly May I use your phone? is a request for permission (might would be more hesitant or polite).
A less common use of may is to express wishes, as in May you live long and happy (see also English subjunctive).
When used with the perfect infinitive, may have indicates uncertainty about a past circumstance, whereas might have can have that meaning, but it can also refer to possibilities that did not occur but could have in other circumstances (see also conditional sentences above).
She may have eaten cake (the speaker does not know whether she ate cake).
She might have eaten cake (this means either the same as the above, or else means that she did not eat cake but that it was or would have been possible for her to eat cake).
Note that the above perfect forms refer to possibility, not permission (although the second sense of might have might sometimes imply permission).
The negated form of may is may not; this does not have a common contraction (mayn't is obsolete). The negation of might is might not; this is sometimes contracted to mightn't, mostly in tag questions and in other questions expressing doubt (Mightn't I come in if I took my boots off?).
The meaning of the negated form depends on the usage of the modal. When possibility is indicated, the negation effectively applies to the main verb rather than the modal: That may/might not be means "That may/might not-be", i.e. "That may fail to be true". But when permission is being expressed, the negation applies to the modal or entire verb phrase: You may not go now means "You are not permitted to go now" (except in rare cases where not and the main verb are both stressed to indicate that they go together: You may go or not go, whichever you wish).