Вопросы, выносимые на обсуждение
Points for discussion :
1. Enumerate and characterize basic features of colloquial speech.
2. What is the difference between grammatical inversion and colloquial one?
3. What does the IC – model of the sentence show?
Задания
Exercises:
Exercise 1. How functions show up in conversation.
Six major functional characteristics of conversation help to make it different from most written registers. Conversation
a. ribs on shared context
b. avoids elaboration or specification of meaning.
c. is interactive
d. expresses stance (politeness, emotion and attitude)
e. takes place in real time
f. employs a vernacular range of expression (including informal or colloquial usage in grammar)
In each of the four conversations given in Exercise 4 of previous seminar find the examples of these characteristics.
Exercise 2. Disfluencies, including incomplete utterances and syntactic blends.
Because of the need for real-time production, all conversation is liable to disfluency. However, in practice, disfluency varies according to context. For example, Conversation I has rather little disfluency compared with the other three samples. Sometimes marked disfluency occurs at a particular social or psychological pressures.
- Find at least twelve disfluencies from Conversations III -IV
- Label each case as a pause, hesitator, repeat, incomplete utterance, repair, or syntactic blend.
- Optional: Add, if you can, some comment on the reason for the disfluency’s occurrence in that part of the dialogue.
Exercise 3. Ellipsis and syntactic non-clausal units.
Ellipsis often results in a syntactic non-clausal unit and it is usually possible to reconstruct the material that has been omitted.
- Identify the instances of ellipsis in the following turns from Conversations I – IV:
Conversation I, A12 Conversation II, B3
Conversation II, B2 Conversation II, B4
Conversation III, B12 Conversation IV, B12
Conversation IV, B3 Conversation IV, A14
- Label each case as initial, medial, or final ellipsis, and reconstruct the material that has been omitted. Which of these cases results in a non-clausal unit?
- How does contextual information allow a hearer to reconstruct the omitted part of these utterances?
Exercise 4. Inserts.
Inserts can be conveniently classified as interjections, greetings/ farewells, discourse markers, attention-getters, response-getters, response forms, polite formulae, and expletives. (We will ignore here hesitators like uh, which were dealt with in Exercise 4 of previous seminar).
|
|
|
- Identify the inserts occurring in Conversations I – IV above. Make a list of the different inserts – types, not tokens – than you find.
- The three most common inserts in Conversations I – IV are yeah, oh and okay. Look at all the occurrences of these inserts, and comment in general on their function, details of use, and grammatical position.
- Now look at the occurrences of the outer, less common inserts that occur in Conversations I – IV, and do the task just suggested for yeah, oh and okay.
Exercise 5. Comparing natural and fictional conversations.
Fictional dialogue imitates natural human dialogue up to a point, but intentionally or unintentionally the author may deviate from a thoroughly realistic representation of real conversation. The following text sample is from The Old Devils (1987), written by Kingsley Amis.
- Compare the linguistic and functional characteristics of this fictional conversation with the natural conversations analyzed in Exercises 1-6 above.
- Identify and illustrate linguistic features that are typical natural conversation.
“If you want my opinion,” said Gwen Cellan – Davies, “the old boy’s a terrifically distinguished citizen of Wales. Or at any rate what passes for one these days”. Her husband was cutting the crusts off a slice of toast.
“Well, I should say that’s generally accepted”
“And Reg Burroughs is another after his thirty years of pen-pushing in first City Hall and later County Hall, for which he was duly honoured”.
“That’s altogether too dismissive a view. By any reckoning Alun has done some good things. Come on now, fair play”.
“Good things for himself certainly: Brydan’s Wales and that selection, whatever it’s called/ Both still selling nicely after all these years. Without Brydan and the Brydan industry, Alun would be nothing. Including especially his pwm work – those poems are all sub - Brydan”.
|
|
|
“Following that trail isn’t such a bad -”
“Goes down a treat with the Americans and the English, you bet. But - ” Gwen put her head on one side and gave the little frowning smile she used when she was putting something to someone, often a possible negative view of a third party, “wouldn’t you have to agree that he follows Brydan at, eh, an altogether lower level of imagination and craftsmanship?”
“I agree that compared with Brydan at his best, he doesn’t -”
“You know what I mean”
Exercise 6. Observing the grammar of natural conversations.
Pay attention to conversations in English either among your friends or on the radio or television – and make a note of any utterances that seem syntactically complex or odd.
- Write down the most interesting examples and try to analyze their grammatical structure.
- If you have difficulty, bring the examples to class for group discussion.
- Discuss how these complexities or additives are related to the add-on strategy, real –time production, or the expression of stance.
Рекомендуемая литература
Основная литература:
1. Худяков, А. А. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка : [учеб. пособие для студ. филол. фак-тов и фак-тов иностранных языков вузов] / Худяков Андрей Александрович. - 3-е изд., стер. - М. : Академия , 2012. - 255 с. - (Высшее профессиональное образование). - Библиогр.: с. 219-224. - Терминол. указ.: с. 245-250. - На обл.: Языкознание. - ISBN 978-5-7695-6145-0 : 391-60.
2. Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - M., 2000. – p.6-26.
3. Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики – М., Высшая школа 2010.
Дополнительная литература:
1. Арутюнова Н.Д. Предложение и его смысл: логико-семантические проблемы. – М., 2000.
|
|
|
2. Слюсарева Н.А. Проблемы функционального синтаксиса современного английского языка. – М., 1981.
3. Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. - М., 1982.
Интернет-ресурсы:
1. http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms глоссарий, содержащий более 900 лингвистических терминов с перекрестными ссылками и списком источников (SIL International). Ред. Е. Е. Loos, S.Anderson. D.H.Day Jr., P.C.Jourdan, J.D.Wingate
Практическая работа №18
Тема “ Linguistics of the text”
Цель: рассмотреть понятия text, discourse, textual units, supra-phrasal unity, cumuleme, occurseme, paragraph, stylistic load, retrospect, prospect, category of author, cohesion, representation, substitution, context, рассмотреть текст как предмет исследования и его основные характеристики.
Знания и умения , приобретаемые студентами: студенты должны усвоить понятия text, discourse, textual units, supra-phrasal unity, cumuleme, occurseme, paragraph, stylistic load, retrospect, prospect, category of author, cohesion, representation, substitution, context, усвоитьосновные характеристики текста.
Формируемые компетенции: ОПК–3.
Актуальность темы определяется тем, что в ее рамках осваиваются понятия text , discourse , textual units , cohesion , representation , substitution , context и основные характеристики текста.
Теоретическая часть
Any text is a coherent stretch of speech which is a semantico-topical and syntactic unity. Sentences make up textual stretches on syntactic lines according to a communicative purpose in a particular communicative situation. As a result, a textual stretch has a unifying topic. So, in syntactic terms a text is a strictly topical stretch of talk centering on a common informative purpose.
|
|
|
The text began to be considered by many linguists as the highest lingual unit having its own categories and elements, and also rules of organization, i.e. having its specific grammar.
In the framework of the given understanding of text, it has two main differential features topical (semantic) unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion. Under topical unity we understand impossibility to extract from the text any of it fragmant or in other case the text is destroyed or is reorganized into another text. Any way of extraction can lead to visible change of the text. Under cohesion we understand logical semantico-syntactic and formal structure of the text, leading to the reorganizing its components in any order or including into it some “foreign” fragments.
The cohesion of the text can be formal and semantic. To indicate formal-linguistic means of intratextual links in the linguistics of the text the term cohesion is used and to indicate semantic means the term – coherence. And different types of cohesion and cogeration are described. For cohesion:
1) Reference. Under reference we understand the references either to preceding context (retrospection) or to the following context (prospection) sometimes the retrospectual reference is also called anaphora and prospective reference – cataphora. . The most evident means of reference in English is the article determination: the definite article usually serves as the marker of anaphoric link and the indefinite article as the marker of cataphoric link. For example, in the sentence The boy was pale. the definite article shows that the denotatum, indicated by the noun (boy) has already been mentioned in the previous context.
2) Substitution. The most evident and often used example of substitution is pronominalization – the use of pronouns instead of nouns: Jack could neither read nor write. He was illiterate.
3) Ellipsis. Under it we understand structure incompleteness of the sentence. The elliptical sentence, though, can always be built up to the completed. There are two principal types of ellipsis: a) paradigmatically filled in elliptical sentences. Thus, the question Ready? ; b) syntagmatically filled in elliptical sentences. How was your journey? – Fine.
4) Conjunction. Under it we understand the usage of different connection elements between the sentences, mostly conjunctions (I was terribly angry. And Ann was too.) but also other ways, for example, adverbs (firstly, secondly, lastly) and also sententional formations of the type I mean.
5) Isotopia of the text. It is also named lexical cohesion and thematic net, it presupposes the usage of lexical units, as from the same means of link “subject sphere”. Thus, if in the abstract we observe such words as books, librarians, to read, reading halls, shelves, journals, it is clear that the description concerns the situation in the library or in the reading-hall.
Coherence
The text is not only structural but thematic unity, and it means that it is possible to point out content parameters which characterize it as the unit of the highest level. These are such parameters:
1. Intentionality is the aims, tasks and intentions, which has the author, generating the text.
2. Acceptability is the admissibility of a generated text for it recipient.
3. Informativeness is the degree of presentation in the text of the view, unknown, unexpected.
4. Situativity is the accordance of the form and content of the situation of communication.
5. Intertextuality is the connection of this text with other text.
The theory of text usually presupposes the investigation of problems concerning the context. In linguistics there are a lot of types of context but we’ll speak about two: horizontal and vertical.
Under horizontal we mean the context describing the series of events, immediately changing one another in the frame of dynamically developed in time situation. For example, A boy entered the room. He came up to the window and opened it. Looking out the window, he saw a girl crossing the street.
Under vertical we understand the context, which describes the situation or situations, preceding or being simultaneously with that which is given in the initial sentence of the context; the time in such context freezes or gets the regressive features, for example: A boy entered the room. He was dressed poorly but neatly. He was thin and pale and looked very tired. It was obvious that he had not eaten for days as he was very weak. He was standing in the doorway ready to faint.
Text and discourse are the notions interrelated but not identical. Under the text most researchers understand the example of written speech literally, stylistically organized according to a particular genre and that’s why it is characterizedby thought up composition, relevance, syntactical correctness and structural completeness.
Discourse isn’t bounded by such parameters. First, it cannot be summed to the written form. Second, it is spontaneous, and it isn’t from the point of the form, ideal, structurally changeable, stylistically not completely correct.
Discourse is a verbal reaction of a man to the communicative situation; it is speech “absorbed in life”, it’s the type of activity which exist along with other activities.
The text is characterized by the presence of its own categories and parameters. The formal feature of the discourse is the presence of discourse lexicon (discourse markers, discourse operators) – the adequate interpretation of such verbal elements can be only when they are engaged in speech structure. To such discourse words the grammarians ascribe interjections (oh, aha), the formation of sentential type (you know, you see), particles (even, only) and some others.
Дата добавления: 2019-03-09; просмотров: 253; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!