CHAPTER 3. THE VERB AND ITS GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES 12 страница
- Where to?
- Class.
- Math.
- No, Spanish.
-In a hurry?
- Rather.
-What for?
- Almost ten.
-Well, so long.
- Call me up.
Substitution, representation and ellipsis reveal the principle of economy in the language and learning to use these means of compression actually means learning to speak authentic English. Sometimes, learners of English speak almost flawless English and yet their speech does not sound authentic enough only because it lacks means of economy, i.e.substitutes, representatives and elliptical sentences which come automatically with native speakers.
CHAPTER 3. THE SEMANTIC ASPECT OF THE SENTENCE
1. The notion of the semantic, or the deep structure of the sentence.
2. The problem of semantic modelling in syntax. The semantic types of sentences.
3. The relations between the formal (surface) and the semantic (deep) structures of the sentence.
1. The syntactic explorations of the last forty years have been marked by the renewed interest in the semantics of the sentence. The judgement once made by N. Chomsky that semantics begins where syntax ends seems to be given to oblivion because of its absolute inappropriateness. The generative syntax which started as purely transformational very soon became semantic generative syntax, as the scholars had to admit that any kind of the transformation of the sentence manifests a change in meaning. Semantics is no longer the Cinderella of linguistics, it's more like the Queen of linguistics. Today linguists are preoccupied in the study of covert categories, such as presupposition, implication, inference etc. which are not given directly in the syntactic structure of the sentence and can be revealed only in the process of the semantic interpretation of sentences.
The central notion of the semantic aspect of the sentence is that of the semantic (deep) structure of the sentence. On analogy with the word the sentence is treated as a linguistic sign and like a word it possesses form, denotation and signification. The denotatum of a word is an object of reality, and its significatum is a concept of this object in our minds. The denotatum of a sentence is a situation, or an event of reality and what is the significatum of a sentence? To answer this question let us turn to the semantic analysis of the following sentences. The student was writing his project. The professor had to reexamine the student. The grandmother did not finish her knitting.
The analysis shows that in spite of the difference in lexicon, tense, aspect and modality these sentences share certain information, i.e. all the three sentences name an action and its two participants: the agent and the object. This information constitutes the basis of the semantic, or the deep structure of the sentence. So the semantic structure of the sentence can be defined as the generalized semantic contents, revealed in the analysis of semantically homogeneous sentences. In other words the semantic structure, as it was justly pointed out by V.V.Bogdanov is just another name for the meaning of the sentence, yet the term 'semantic structure' is not redundant, but, on the contrary, it appears to be more convenient as it implies a certain organization and certain relations between its components. M.Y.Blokh points out that the notion of deep structure of the sentence can be used for detailed characteristics of the parts of the sentence as they can fulfil primary and secondary semantic functions in the sentence [Buox 2000, 105]. We would like to once again stress the point, that the differentiation of the semantic aspect of the sentence does not at all imply that the syntactic structures are asemantic. Yet in the study of various syntactic structures we constantly deal with the cases when one and the same syntactic structure expresses different meanings and, vice versa, one and the same meaning can be expressed by different syntactic structures, which makes it necessary to differentiate between the syntactic and semantic structures of the sentence and between the components of the syntactic level of the sentence (subject, predicate, object etc.)' and components of the semantic structure. The components of the semantic structure of the sentence have been named differently: actants (L. Tesniere), deep cases (Ch. Fillmore), semantic arguments, or semantic roles (V.V.Bogdanov, G.G. Pocheptsov ). The analysis of the semantic structure of the sentence and of the relations between the semantic and syntactic structures makes it possible to consistently differentiate between the primary and secondary semantic functions of the sentence parts and reveal the semantic potential of each part of the sentence as well as to point out and analyze the cases of synonymy and polysemy in the sphere of syntax.
|
|
|
Nowadays, mostly under the influence of the ideas of psycholinguistics many linguists tend to interpret the deep structure as the plot, the abstract plan of the sentence, or the interface between the mental dictionary and the lexico-grammatical structure [Pinker 1994, 121].
|
|
|
2. Once it is possible to speak about the semantic structure of the sentence, it is possible to speak about semantic types of sentences and their classification. There are several approaches to the classification of semantic types of sentences. As the sentence is built around the predicate most of the existing classifications are based on the semantic type of the predicate or on the valency characteristics of it. Thus, W. Chafe differentiates between three semantic types of predicates and, consequently, between three semantic types of sentences: 1) statal sentences -The -wood is dry; 2) process sentences - The wood dried; 3) action sentences - Harriet broke the dish.
The semantic classification of sentences worked out by N.D.Arutyunova has at its basis the logical types of situations reflected in the sentence [ApyxioHOBa 1976]. In accordance with these types it is possible to point out four semantic types of sentences: 1) sentences of nomination - The inevitable happened; 2) sentences of existence - Once upon a time there lived a blind poet; 3) sentences of characterization - He was a real gentleman; 4) sentences of identification - So you are the Holmes. As the problem of semantic modelling in syntax is comparatively new we may expect more and more classifications of semantic types of sentences to arrive.
3. So we can see that the sentence possesses the syntactic (formal, or surface) structure which can be observed directly and semantic (deep) structure which is not given in direct observation and can be revealed by means of semantic interpretation of the sentence and its parts. -The consistent differentiation between the formal and the semantic structures of the sentence makes it possible to analyze the relations between them. These relations may be of two kinds: symmetrical and asymmetrical. There certainly exists a fundamental parallelism between the parts of the sentence and their semantic roles in the sentence which is reflected in the so called primary semantic functions of the parts of the sentence. Let us turn to the analysis of the following sentence. He opened the door with my key. The sentence is characterized by the symmetrical relations between its formal and semantic structures: the predicate names the action, the subject corresponds to the agent, the direct object - to the recipient, and the prepositional object - to the instrument of the action.
|
|
|
But this fundamental parallelism is often broken and as everywhere in the language cases of asymmetry occur more frequently than cases of symmetry. Asymmetry between the syntactic and semantic structures of the sentence may find various manifestations in the sentence. Let us consider some of the most typical cases.
1) Not all semantic arguments may be presented in the surface structure of the sentence. Thus, in passive constructions the agent of the action is very often not expressed explicitly. E.g. I've been made to feel more welcome in my life (A. Conan Doyle).
2) One and the same part of the sentence may carry out different semantic functions in the sentence. Thus, the subject whose primary semantic function is the agent of the action may denote the object of the action, the addressee, the place, the time, the cause, the instrument and the action itself. E.g.
1) The facts were not in dispute (E. Segal) - object;
2) / was told by the concierge that that Mr Fabian expected me to come to his room(J. Shaw) - addressee;
3) London was windy (J. Galsworthy) - place;
4) The end of September began to witness their several returns (J. Galsworthy) - time ;
5) The knife cuts easily movement;
(I. Shaw) - instrument; 6) What brought you back? (I. Shaw} - cause; 6). Teasing made his day (A. Miller) - action.
On the other hand, one and the same semantic function may be expressed by different parts of the sentence, e.g. 1) He smiled sadly. 2) He smiled a sad smile. In these two sentences the manner of action is expressed by an adverbial modifier in the first sentence and by an object phrase in the second.
|
|
|
3) Sentences may have different syntactical but identical semantic structures, i.e. be close in their meaning. Let us analyze the following two sentences: 1) He was a good story teller. 2) He told a story well. The sentences have different syntactic structures, but both express characterization and can be referred to one and the same semantic type of sentences - sentences of characterization (in N.D. Arutyunova's classification). Such cases can be treated as cases of syntactic, or functional synonymy. Syntactic synonymy is often observed in the sphere of the predicate. E.g. Molto has been a no-show in the office for three days ( S. Turow). The predicate in this sentence is nominal in its form, but actional in semantics which becomes evident if we paraphrase the sentence - Molto has not shown himself in the office for three days. Thus the nominal predicate actualizes its secondary semantic function and becomes a functional synonym of the verbal predicate (for more detail see: ]KyjinrHHa 2003]).
4) Sentences may have identical syntactic, but different semantic structures, e.g. 1) He told a story well, and 2) He told the story well. The first sentence expresses a repeated action that characterizes a person and it is synonymous to the sentence He was a good story-teller, so it presents a sentence of characterization. The second sentence is actional in its semantics as it describes one particular event, it refers to sentences of nomination (in Arutynova's classification). The classical examples of sentences with identical syntactic but different semantic structures are: She made him a good husband because she made him a good wife; He is easy to please. He is eager to please. All these cases present cases of syntactic homonymy.
5) A sentence may be syntactically simple but semantically complex and vice versa. E.g. 1) / married a coward. 2) It's you who did it. The first sentence is syntactically simple but semantically complex as it presents a combination of two semantic types of sentences: that of nomination and that of characterization. The semantic interpretation of this sentence can be presented as: I married a person and that person is a coward. The second sentence is syntactically complex but its semantic structure is simple as it denotes one event of reality and belongs to the semantic type of identification (N.A.Kobrina defines such sentences as pseudo-complex).
The study of the semantic aspect of the sentence, the analysis of the ways of expressing identical semantic functions in different languages helps to point out the cases of similarity as well as the cases of difference between the languages. Thus, one of the most characteristic typological features of the English subject is that it is used in its secondary semantic functions much more frequently than the Russian subject which often results in the fact that Russian learners of English sometimes use structures which are not quite authentic in English. In Russian we say: "Uonemy mbi max dymaeuibl", which corresponds to the English "What makes you think soT\ yet instead of the more authentic "What makes you think so?" we often hear in class "Why do you think soT\
We may conclude by saying that semantic structures appear to be more (though never completely) universal whereas syntactic structures are language-specific and this fact must be taken into consideration in learning and teaching English.
CHAPTER 4. THE COMMUNICATIVE ASPECT OF THE SENTENCE AND ITS ACTUAL DIVISION
1. Classification of sentences according to the purpose of communication
2. The problem of exclamatory sentences.
3. Transposition on the level of communicative types of sentences.
4. The actual division of the sentence. The central notions of the actual division: the theme and the rheme. Dirhemic and monorhemic utterances.
5. Means of expressing the components of actual division.
6. The peculiarities of actual division in different communicative types of sentences. The text forming function of actual division.
1. From the point of view of its role in discourse the sentence is defined as a minimum unit of communication. Every sentence is uttered with a certain communicative aim: either to share information with the listener, or to ask for information, or to induce the listener to some action.
According to their communicative aim sentences are divided into three types: declarative, interrogative and imperative. As a rule one communicative type differs from another not only in the purpose of communication, but also in structure, intonation and the listener's response.
Let us have a closer look at each communicative type. The declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative. Declarative sentences are characterized by a direct word order, a falling tone and are correlated with the listener's responding signal of attention, which may express agreement, disagreement, sympathy, approval, appraisal etc, e.g.
1) "You look well, Dad " - "Middling". (J. Galsworthy)
2) "Why, this is porridge, cold porridge. " "Real Scotch porridge. You should appreciate it, with your Scotch name. " ( G. Greene)
3) "She has left me. "- " My dear boy, my little boy. " (J. Galsworthy)
The interrogative sentence presents a request for information wanted by the
speaker from the listener. It also differs structurally from the declarative sentence by
an inverted word order.
The usual response to an interrogative sentence is an answer which, together with the
question, forms a question - answer dialogue unity, e.g. "Are there any letters for
me?" "Three."
In the process of communication the interrogative communicative purpose, like
any other, is not always fulfilled, in such cases the response to a question may be
silence, a verbal refusal to give an answer or another question, e.g.
1) "Then why did Ted Driffield marry her? " "Ask me another " (S. Maugham)
2) "How are you, Mr Bosinney? " He turned his back and walked away. (J. Galsworthy)
3) "What do you think of my new star? " "Who gave it to you? "
(J. Galsworthy)
Traditionally interrogative sentences are subdivided into several subclasses: general, special, alternative and so called disjunctive (or tag) questions. This classification, however, is more structural than communicative in its essence, it reflects the difference in the structure of the questions more than the difference in the communicative intention of the speaker. The analysis of the interrogative sentences in the communicative aspect allows us to make just a few additions to the traditional classification. Thus, a closer look at the general and alternative questions shows that they do not differ much in their communicative aim. The communicative aim of both
the questions is to get information about the whole event whereas in special questions the speaker needs information about the details, or particulars, thus asking 'who', 'where', 'what', 'why' etc. When asking about the event (whether it really did, does or will take place) we always have an alternative in our minds, i.e. we expect a lyes' or a 'no' answer. This alternative is implied, but is not presented explicitly in the structure of the general question. In the alternative question as the name suggests the alternative is expressed explicitly and this seems to be the only difference between general and alternative questions. Taking this into consideration we may regard general questions as compressed variants of alternative questions with the alternative implied (not presented in the structure of the question), and alternative questions, in their turn, may be regarded as extended variants of general questions with the alternative expressed explicitly in the structure of the question. As for the so called disjunctive questions the term 'disjunctive' reveals the structure of the question rather than its aim in communication. The analysis of question-answer unities with this type of questions shows that their communicative function is not a request for information as in general questions but rather confirmation of the information that the speaker already has and just wants the listener to confirm, e.g. He arrived last night, didn't he? So the best term for these question from the point of view of their role in the process of communication is confirmative questions. These questions have a high, frequency in English and carry out several pragmatic functions. They are often used as a means of subjective modality intended to make the utterance less assertive (This isn't the best of your answers, is it?). They also carry out a contact- forming function as they involve the listener in the conversation (Fine day, isn 't it?). They may be used as an effective means of making the speaker share your opinion or carry out the promise ^'You'll never go back, will you"? -"No." "Youpromise?"- "Ipromise". (G.Greene).
As it was pointed out by Ch. Bally, a sentence contains two parts: modus which expresses the attitude of the speaker to the information presented in the sentence, and dictum which contains this information. E.g. in the sentence / think we 'II reach the final solution tomorrow the principal clause / think presents the modus and the subordinate clause is the dictum. In accordance with the theory of modus and dictum linguists differentiate between two types of questions: modal (referring to the modus) and dictal (referring to the dictum) [ApyxioHOBa 1970]. The latter are aimed at getting factual information about the event of reality presented by the sentence, the former - at finding out the listener's opinion about the event. Compare the following dialogues:
1) "I have to leave early today ".
Дата добавления: 2019-02-12; просмотров: 430; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!