Автор: Пользователь скрыл имя, 20 Января 2011 в 20:49, курс лекций
краткий курс лекций.
In tables -s is a classical inflexion, in enthusiasms it is partially lexicalized, in colours it is already a suffix.
The semantic structure of a grammatical form ( now it is the form of the plural of nouns) contains all the paradigmatic and syntagmatic components. The development of syntagmatic meanings is a manifestation of the global linguistic law of the asymmetry of a linguistic sign.
The Category of Case
Under the category of case we understand the change of form of a noun to denote its grammatical relations to other parts of communication.
The number of cases varies in different languages { two in English (common and Genitive), 7 (including the Vocative case) in Russian). It depends upon the morphological structure of the language and its development.
In Old English cases corresponded to the syntactical positions of nouns. The Nominative represented a subject or a predicative, the Accusative represented direct object, the Dative stood for a indirect object, the Genitive stood for an attribute, the Vocative denoted a direct address. In the course of time the number of cases got reduced , the inflexions died out, and the relations of nouns to other parts of communication came to be expressed by word order, prepositions and two cases – the Common and the Genitive.
Debated Problems within the Category of Case
To the debated problems within the category of case there refer 1. the existence of this category in English ( Otto Jespersen ridiculed the very idea of case in English as a morphological category, but he recognised it as a logical category); 2. the nature of this category (morphological, syntactical, morphologico-syntactical, logical) The prevalent view is the one that treats case as a morphological category, which is based upon the opposition of two cases: the common case and the genitive case; 3. the number of cases { absence of cases, two cases (the common and the genetive case), many cases. Semantic syntax operates with the notion of deep cases while describing semantic relations within a sentence. Charles Fillmore distinguished a proposition, a predicate and arguments when analysing the semantic structure of a proposition. Arguments perform different semantic roles in the sentence, they are associated with cases. Ch. Fillmore suggests such a set of cases: agentive, objective, locative, instrumental, that of goal, that of patient, that of source, that of result, etc. One and the same argument may express different roles{ The teacher explains the new rule (the agent or the source}). W. Chafe adds the cases of experience and beneficiary( I have seen the world. I have been given flowers); }; 4. the nature of the element –‘s. It is an uncommon inflexion which cannot be likened to possessive inflexions in Slavic languages (печаль расставания, печаль разлуки, крылатый слова звук, лепесток розы - лепесток роз, пара гнедых, etc). In Russian case inflexions are attached to nouns. In English the element -‘s can be attached to all kinds of nouns, numerals, adverbs, adjectives, pronouns, composite words, phrases and even sentences (Tomorrow’s newspaper. He’ll come in an hour or two’s time. Somebody else’s phrase. The blond I was dancing with’s name was something like Alison). All these peculiarities make the scholars (profs. Ilyish, Vorontsova, Palmer, Gleason) consider-‘s to be a postposition or even a form- word, like an auxiliary or a particle, serving to convey the meaning of possession, a sign of syntactical dependence. But most scholars believe -‘s to be a typical case inflexion because it comes from OE genitive case; it expresses relations of a noun to other words; it is phonetically dependent, whereas postpositions are phonetically independent; most often it is attached to nouns. Still it is more peculiar and independent than other English grammatical morphemes.
Genitive Constructions (N’s N)
There are a number of genitive constructions in English which are classified according to different criteria: 1. dependence {Dependent and Independent (Absolute) Genitive ( a student’s answer, This student’s was the best answer); 2. the number of the constituents ( a single word Genitive: a boy’s bike, a double Genitive( my father’s friend’s pipe), a triple Genitive( my brother’s friend’s bride’s hat), a group Genitive( Prince of Denmark’s tragedy); 3. semantic relations between N’s and N: there are semantic varieties of dependent Genitives which are revealed transformationally and can be interpreted by means of componential method : a possessive Genitive( my son’s bike => my son has a bike), an agentive (subjective) Genitive( the boy’s application => the boy applied), an objective Genitive( the boy’s expulsion => the boy was expelled), an ambiguous Genitive (the writer’s invitation => the writer invites somebody (a subjective Genitive), => somebody invited the writer (an objective Genitive), the Genitive of origin( the girl’s story => the story told by the girl), descriptive Genitive (a mother’s love , a dog’s devotedness), Genitive of destination (the children’s room, the women’s magazine), Genitive of extension (a day’s work), temporal Genitive( a minute’s success, etc.).
All these synthetic Genitives can be replaced by analytical Genitives as there is semantic and structural similarity between the two ( France’s wines = the wines of France. It is the genitive of source). Analytical Genitive can be as ambiguous as a synthetic one ( the soldier’s shooting = the shooting of the soldiers =>the soldier shot or the soldier was shot). We can distinguish the same varieties of analytical Genitive as they are equal and can be encountered in the same environment (the Genitive of measure: the absence of two days= two days’ absence).
As to an Absolute Genitive, it is used independently. It is structurally and functionally diverse. Most frequent is the anaphorical Genitive which is used instead of a noun and represents the noun previously used to avoid its repetition. In a sentence it can perform the functions of a direct object, an attribute, a predicative, a detached element of a sentence (Render to Caesar those things which are Caesar’s and render to God those things which are God’s). The cataphorical Genitive anticipates a noun which is to come(John’s married the woman her father had loved).
The partitive (разделительный) Genitive( an opera of Verdi's => one of Verdi's operas). The locative Genitive( I met him at my aunt’s => at my aunt’s place).
Syntagmatically the absolute Genitive structure this N of N’s can express negative or positive evaluation (How naive was that picture of Dirk Stroeve’s. There was a silence threatened for a moment by that laughter of Giovanni’s. So your wife is a great friend of Mr Bossini’s).
Traditionally inanimate nouns are apt not to be used in the Genitive case , but in poetry and artistic texts there are no limitations to any noun being used in the Genitive, which is a marker of personification ( a variety of metaphor). Personification is a trope. Its effect consists in imparting the property of animate things to inanimate objects ( the ocean’s wave; reason’s voice; twilight’s silence, etc. Soldiers are citizens of death’s grey land).
At present in media (newspapers and magazines) of various circulation and orientation we encounter the spreading tendency to use any noun in the Genitive(the room’s silence; his book’s success, etc.) In this case nothing is personified. The Genitive loses its meaning of possession and acquires a qualifying function.
The morpheme -‘s comes to be lexicalized and turns into a derivational element, a suffix which changes the meaning of the word it is attached to (St Paul’s looks like a giant ship in the darkness = St Paul’s Cathedral. In an electrician’s he acquired a 9 volt transistor battery, in a stationer’s he was supplied with paper).
1. Debated is the status of the article in the morphological system of ME. Some scholars treat it as a separate word, a separate part of speech {a pronoun (indefinite , demonstrative) or a pronominal adjective. The definite or the indefinite article, combining with nouns, forms word combinations (a table, the table) which are to be studied by syntax. Other linguists (B.A.Ilyish, for instance) treat these articles as functional words, auxiliary elements, building analytical forms of nouns, which represent the morphological category of definiteness/ indefiniteness. The distinction of this category expands the paradigm of the noun. According to M.Y. Blokh, the article is a half-notional, determining word. 2. Debated is the number of articles in ME. Some scholars distinguish two articles (the definite and the indefinite article). Others believe in the existence of the third article, the zero article, which denotes extreme generalization (Compare it with the zero morphemes of the singular form of nouns and verbs, which are meaningful). So, a three-member opposition a table::the table::table can be distinguished, which, according to M.Y. Blokh, underlies the category of article determination.
Articles are peculiar, semantically, syntactically and communicatively. The indefinite article, as a rule, expresses a classifying generalization (An elephant is a big animal). The definite article expresses identification or individuality of the referent of the noun (This is the book I’ve seen at the exhibition).The zero article develops the meaning of absolute generalization (Woman has not yet come into her own). Syntactically, the indefinite article is placed before a descriptive attribute, while the definite article is placed before a limiting attribute. Communicatively, the indefinite article is a signal of new, or important information, hence, frequent is its rhematic function. The definite article is a signal of the starting point of communication, of known or old, insignificant information, hence, frequent is its thematic function.
The indefinite article develops the following functions in a sentence (simple, composite), a supra-phrasal structure, larger discourse:
The definite article develops the following functions:
The zero article is a marker of generalization and dematerialization (Woman has not yet come into her own. W.S.Maugham. He crouched by a piece of broken house. R. Aldington).
Articles are extremely important compositionally, communicatively and psychologically. They participate in the communicative organization of simple and composite sentences, supra-phrasal units and texts. Articles can artistically alternate (He gathered a great bunch of flowers for “the lady in grey”. Lady in grey! Did she exist? Had she ever come at all? Or was she but the emanation of all the beauty he had loved and must leave so soon? J.Galsworthy).
The
initial placement of the indefinite article is characteristic of traditional
literature (Ch. Dickens, W.M. Thackeray). Here novels and stories open
with an exposition, where the author is an omniscient being, who
explains everything and prepares you for everything. In XX-th century
modernistic literature (V.Woolf, K.Mansfield, J.Joyce, E.Hemingway,
etc) we find no exposition. We are immediately drawn into the depth
of the context (The door of Henry’s lunch room opened and
two men came in. E. Hemingway. The Killers). Articles often indicate
the mood of the speaker and create some attitude in the hearer (or the
reader)(I collected men with interesting names. I already knew
a Socrates. Sylvia Plath. The Bell Jar).
Lecture
3
The Verb
The General Properties of a Verb
Verbs express events, processes, states, actions, activities, performances and achievements. It is an open class of words. Any word can be verbalized. Morphologically, syntactically and semantically it is a heterogeneous class of words, the most developed one, with the largest paradigm. The verb is a macrosystem of categories ( person. number, aspect, tense, correlation, voice, mood) which are microsystems. Each category is based on the opposition of forms, these oppositions being binary and ternary; privative and equipollent (read::reads; read::have read; read::is read; read::is reading, went::goes::shall go, etc.).
The verb can be described in terms of the field theory. It has a field-like structure with a nucleus and a periphery. Its nucleus carries the actional, processive and statal verbs with a full-fledged, developed paradigm, verbs with complete predication, notional verbs with a full nominative value. We see here transitives, intransitives, semantically dual verbs, functioning both as transitives and intransitives ( fly, wear, close, develop, eat, wash, etc.). The periphery is composed of semi-notionals with a partial nominative value. These are the verbs with a defective paradigm and an incomplete predication ( link-verbs: be, seem, appear, happen, get, grow; modal verbs: must, may, can, should, will; modal equivalents: be to, have to, have got to, etc., auxiliaries : do, have, shall, should, will, would, get, go: Everything has been going just great. The house got burnt); verbs with the relational semantics (include, belong, refer, resemble); verbs with phrasal semantics (begin, stop, continue, come, go, get, stand: He went running, He came running, He got going), substitutes replacing notionals (Do you want to go? Yes, I do). All these verbs have no nominative value, they can’t predicate by themselves.
We find among verbs those with post-positions ( to put off, to get off, etc.). Notional verbs are apt to be easily functionalized (I have come to understand you at last), which shows English to be an analytical language. Some verbs are used to impart dynamics to a sentence ( Try and do it! I can’t go and shoot him!). As compared with Russian, English is twice or thrice as verbal.
The Category of Tense
Tense is a grammatical expression of objective distinctions of time into the past, present and future. The existence of this category is undebated in all Indo-European languages, but within the category there are some debated problems:1.the number of tenses; 2.the existence of the Future Tense; 3. the syntagmatic meanings of the past tenses; 4.the nature of the Future-in- the Past.
Classifications of Tenses
There exist classifications embracing a rich variety of tenses. Temporal relations are considered by some scholars to be more complex than merely the present, the past and the future. Otto Jespersen’s classification is most peculiar. He distinguishes main or simple times (Present and Past), subordinate times which are points in time posterior or anterior to some other point ( in the present, in the past or in the future). This is a logical scheme( the before past time, the after past time, the before future time, the after future time), with no simple future (She gave birth to a son who was to cause her great anxiety ( the after past). He excluded the future on the ground that in English there are no grammatical means to express pure futurity, the “so called future” being modal.
The writer of a popular manual in practical grammar prof. Kaushanskaya distinguished 16 tenses. Her practical scheme of tenses is based on O. Jespersen’s scheme and comprises Progressive tenses (continuous, long) and Perfect tenses. There are 4 Indefinite tenses, 4 Continuous tenses, 4 Perfect tenses and 4 Perfect Continuous tenses.
The classifications embracing 3 tenses were advanced by Profs. Smirnitsky, Ilyish, Khlebnikova, et al. These classifications are based on a three tenses oppositional approach. It is the Past, the Present and the Future ( a tertiary equipollent opposition: went::goes:shall/will go). In two-tense classifications we find The Past and the Present, or The Present and the Future ( a binary privative opposition). In some schemes the Present is treated as an abstraction which cannot be objectively established. Others treat the Present stretching limitlessly into the future and into the past (prospectively and retrospectively).
The Future Tense
As a colourless, neutral synthetic future which is to be found in Russian and French it is non-existent in English. O. Jespersen, Palmer, L. Barkhudarov hold that shall and will are modal verbs meaning obligation and volition. English does very well without regular auxiliaries to express futurity (The train leaves tomorrow. The train is leaving tomorrow. The train is to leave tomorrow. The train is about to leave tomorrow. The train is on the point of leaving). We do not find the Future in clauses of time and condition ( If he comes, tell me about it. When he comes, tell me about it).
According to N.A.Kobrina, B.A.Ilyish, E.A.Korneeva, the English Tense system is represented by the opposition The Past : the Present : the Future. These scholars find that shall and will indicate merely futurity , they have become fully grammaticalized, losing their modality. N.A. Kobrina and E.A.Korneeva add that there exist two constructions shall/will + infinitive, in one shall and will are modals and in the other they are future auxiliaries. When they are auxiliaries, they can be contracted into ‘ll. This marker of futurity can be attached to any class of words (What he says’ll have authority).
M.Y.Blokh distinguishes newer categories within the Future. On the basis of the oppositions come :: shall come, come :: will come he distinguishes the category of prospect, on the basis of the opposition shall come:: will come he distinguishes the category of futurity option. The distinction between the members of this opposition is neutralized in the element ‘ll. Shall and will are not substitutable. Will can be used in all persons, shall is relevant only for the first person singular and plural. So we can conclude that The Future is an unfinished system in English.
The Present Tense
As to its syntagmatic semantics, the Present is the richest tense form. Its paradigmatic meaning is that of immediate present coinciding with the moment of speech. It’s syntagmatic meanings are: habitual recurrent actions characterising a person (He hates authority); universal truths (usually in maxims)(The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything, the young know everything. O.Wilde); the biblical timeless present ( One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the Earth abideth forever…); futurity ( He returns from London tomorrow); a long stretch of time from the past into the future( I know him all my life); a past occurrence ( the so called Historic, Dramatic Present) (Yesterday she comes in, sits down, gasps and dies. A. Christie. Then he turned the corner and what do you think happens next?).