Ответы на вопросы к экзамену по теоретической грамматике (английский язык) - файл n1.docx

Ответы на вопросы к экзамену по теоретической грамматике (английский язык)
Скачать все файлы (93 kb.)

Доступные файлы (1):
n1.docx93kb.30.03.2014 06:14скачать

n1.docx

  1   2   3   4   5
1. Means of form-building in modern English.
The grammatical meaning finds its expression in a grammatical form which is a means of expressing a grammatical meaning. There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of form-building types is into synthetic and analytical. In a synthetic type a grammatical meaning is expressed within a word, in an analytical type a grammatical meaning is expressed with the help of auxiliary words (plus suffixes). The synthetic types of form-building in English include affixation :suffixes –s,-ed, -ing, -er, -est, -en, -ren, -ne, -m (reads, shown, books, oxen, taken, mine ,them etc.), sound interchange/ morpho-phonemic alteration – a meaningful change of vowels or consonants within a morpheme (take - took, shine - shone) and suppletivity – the extreme case of morphophon. alteration, there happens a complete phon. change of the root, is not productive (go - went, be -was, good - better – best, I-me, we-us, she-her) .The only productive type in the present-day English is affixation, but the other two types are no less important, if only because they occur in words which are most frequently used. The analytical type of form-building occupies a very important place in the grammatical structure of English as the language has evolutionized from being mainly synthetical to becoming more and more analytical, and analytical tendencies in the present day English are very strong. There exist the so-called half-analytical structure and the analytical tendencies find their reflection in many spheres of the language.


2. Grammatical meaning and the grammatical form

The grammatical meaning, the gram form, the gram paradigm.
(Blokh) Grammatical meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but unites a whole class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics.

For instance, the meaning of the substantive plural is rendered by the regular plural suffix -(e)s, and in some cases by other, more specific means, such as phonemic interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes. Due to the generalised character of the plural, we say that different groups of nouns "take" this form with strictly defined variations in the mode of expression, the variations being of more systemic (phonological conditioning) and less systemic (etymological conditioning) nature. Cf.: faces, branches, matches, judges; books, rockets, boats, chiefs, proofs; dogs, beads, films, stones, hens; lives, wives, thieves, leaves; girls, stars, toys, heroes, pianos, cantos; oxen, children, brethren, kine; swine, sheep, deer; cod, trout, salmon; men, women, feet, teeth, geese, mice, lice; formulae, antennae; data, errata, strata, addenda, memoranda; radii, genii, nuclei, alumni; crises, bases, analyses, axes; phenomena, criteria.

As we see, the grammatical form presents a division of the word on the principle of expressing a certain grammatical meaning.
Gram meaning (GM) is a general abstract meaning which unites classes of forms or words and finds its expression through formal markers thus placing a linguistic unit in a grammatical category or a grammatical class of words (a part of speech). Grammatical meanings are more general and abstract whereas lexical meanings are usually more concrete and specific. The typological analysis of grammatical meanings reveals that they reflect not the fragments of reality but rather the structure of such fragments. Being limited in their number grammatical meanings have a regular and an obligatory character in the language. We cannot use a notional word without expressing its grammatical meaning/meanings. For example, when we say: It has been raining for hours, the verb rain expresses one lexical meaning and seven grammatical meanings (person, number, tense, aspect, time correlation, voice, and mood).

The grammatical meaning finds its expression in a grammatical form which is a means of expressing a grammatical meaning. Difference between w-form and the word: w-form may be equal to the word but at any rate it presents an isolated unit. It’s never part of a wd. W-forms- we abstract ourselves from lex.mean-g of the corresp. wd. We concentrate on the gram. mean-g it caries. Ex. speaks (it shows the 3d person singular- never interested in the fact that it’s the verb of saying). Unlike a wd, the w-form is not independent , it’s always bound as a member of a corresponding set of forms, such as set of f. usually form a paradigm. There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of form-building types is into synthetical and analytical. In a synthetical type a grammatical meaning is expressed within a word, in an analytical type a grammatical meaning is expressed with the help of auxiliary words (plus suffixes). The synthetical types of form-building in English include affixation (reads, shown, books, theirs etc.), sound interchange (take - took, shine - shone) and suppletivity (go - went, be -was, good - better - best}. .The only productive type in the present-day English is affixation, but the other two types are no less important, if only because they occur in words which are most frequently used. The analytical type of form-building occupies a very important place in the grammatical structure of English as the language has evolutionized from being mainly synthetical to becoming more and more analytical, and analytical tendencies in the present day English are very strong. There exist the so-called half-analytical structures and the analytical tendencies find their reflection in many spheres of the language.


3/4 Grammatical category and its characteristic features.

M.Y. Blokh defines the grammatical category as "a system of expressing a generalized grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms".

It’s a unity of form & meaning. 1)The general notion on which a gram. category grounds is gram. mean-g. 2)The forms united into a grammatical category possess a common general meaning that gives a name to the category and each form possesses its own specific meaning that presents a specification of the general meaning and differentiates the form from the other form/forms within the category. The forms lives - lived - will live are united on the basis of the common general grammatical meaning of tense and constitute the grammatical category of tense. Within this category each form has its own specific meaning of tense: present, past and future. 3) gram. categories don’t nominate objects or units of lang., instead they express relations between lang. units. The grammatical category of tense presents a specific lingual expression of objective time, the grammatical category of case presents various relations between the action and its participants, the grammatical category of number in nouns reflects the quantitative relations between homogeneous objects of reality, the grammatical category of mood presents the relations between the action and reality as they are presented by the speaker etc. Such grammatical categories may also be called inherent (неотъемлемый, присущий). 4) Conceptual (понятийные) grammatical categories are universal, they exist in most of the languages though their volume and their scope may vary considerably in various languages. Gram. cat-s represent lang. realization of universal cat-s of human thinking. That’s why gram. cat-s typical of a particular lang. are unique. The grammatical category of number is the most universal grammatical category, all speech communities have linguistic means of encoding number, though these means differ greatly in different languages. 5) A grammatical category is constituted on the basis of contrastive grammatical forms which share a certain grammatical meaning correlated to some general concept (time, number) and differ in more concrete meanings within the scope of the same concept. Such contrastive grammatical forms are called oppositions and all grammatical categories are based on oppositions. The method of oppositional analysis was introduced by Trubetskoy . Now the method of oppositional analysis is widely used in lexicology and grammar
(blokh) More specifically, the grammatical category is a system of expressing a generalised grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.

The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a categorial function constitutes a paradigm.

The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by the so-called "grammatical oppositions".

The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalised correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question.

The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition.

The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterised by the presence of a certain differential feature ("mark"), while the other member is characterised by the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the "marked", or "strong", or "positive" member, and is commonly designated by the symbol + (plus); the member in which the feature is absent is called the "unmarked", or "weak", or "negative" member, and is commonly designated by the symbol — (minus).

For instance, the voiced and devoiced consonants form a privative opposition [b, d, g —p, t, k]. The differential feature of the opposition is "voice". This feature is present in the voiced consonants, so their set forms the marked member of the opposition. The devoiced consonants, lacking the feature, form the unmarked member of the opposition. To stress the marking quality of "voice" for the opposition in

question, the devoiced consonants may be referred to as «nоn-voiced".

The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features.

For instance, the phonemes [m] and [b], both bilabial consonants, form an equipollent opposition, [m] being sonorous nazalised, [b ] being plosive.
5. Parts of speech and different principles of their classification.

The general definition of a part of speech: it is a lexical-grammatical word class which is characterized by a general abstract grammatical meaning, expressed in certain grammatical markers. Within a part of speech similar grammatical features are common to all words belonging to this class.

A part of speech is a mixed lexical-grammatical phenomenon, because:

1) Words are characterized by individual lexical meanings. 2) Each generalized class of words (noun/verb/adj., etc) has a unifying abstract gram. meaning, for ex.: noun – substance, verb – process, adjective – quality of substance, adverb – quality of process. 3) Some parts of speech are capable of representing gram. meaning in a set of formal exponents; for ex.: the plural of nouns is expressed with suffix –s (this feature is not universal in all languages).

PS are distinguished from one another by the number of wds in each class. The greatest number of wds is found in the noun & verb. The N&V correspond to the subj.&pred. of the sent., they’re usually the center of predication.

Modern classification of parts of speech is traced back to ancient Greek. Later this classification was applied to Latin and thus it found its way in modern languages. The present day classification of parts of speech is severely criticized, when it’s applied to languages the structure of which is different to the structure of the Latin language. So the criticism is easily justified. On the other hand the traditional division of words into parts of speech seems quiet natural and easy to understand & remember from the logical point of view. So it’s not the classification itself that is wrong but it must be the principles of classification that should be criticized and reviewed.

Classifying a lang. from the view point of PS, there are the following principles:

1) Semantic: the general mean-g of a PS doesn’t coincide with a lex. or gram.mean-g of every individual word, but it’s closely connected with it. Thus the gen. mean-g of a PS is neither lex. nor gram., but it’s to be called lexical-grammatical. Ex. nouns are characterized by substantivity, verbs- actions & states, which together mean processes, adj-s- attributes of substances, etc.

2) Morphological: it has 2 aspects: a) deals with morphol. categories (each PS possesses certain morphol. cat-s which are not found in other PS): ex. nouns- case & number , adj.- comparison, verbs- 7 categories. This aspect is more important.b) the use of form-build. affixes (deriv. affixes sometimes can be found within this or that PS only): ex. nouns- -ment, -ion, -ness. But deriv. affixes may be highly confusing: ex. –ly: friendly(adj), daily(noun), kindly(adv.), possibly (modal wd)

3) Syntactic: a) the role of a wd in a sent. (dif. synt. Functions are typical of dif. PS); b) the combinability of wds/ the syntactical distribution (распределение): ex. noun can combine with prepositions, articles, adj-s, other nouns, verbs.

4) Functional: PS- a field that has a core & a periphery.

The existing principles:

The semantic approach: (based on the meaning, used in many schools). It is based on the universal forms of human thought which are reflected in 3 main categorial meanings of words: 1)substance (предметность); 2)process (процессуальность); 3)property (свойства, качества). However, this principle is open to criticism; it doesn’t always work; it can be hard to define a categorial meaning of a word: e.g. whiteness - is it substance of a noun or property of an adjective? action – it denotes process, but it isn’t a verb.

The formal approach: Only form should be used as a criterion for the classification of the p/of/sp. (Henry Sweet).

They distinguished between two classes of words: 1) declinable (склоняем )- changeable forms; 2) indeclinable (static forms)- articles, prepositions. This criterion is also unreliable. It doesn’t take into account the way a word functions in the sentence. Must functions as many other verbs, or for instance shall which has a declinable form. The main problem with this classification- Sweet didn’t manage to work out an idea of an indep. word-class with peculiar properties & he didn’t manage to devoid his class-n from the ideas of mean-g.

The formal-semantic approach: Grammarians tried to take into consideration meaning, form & function. It appears that in analytical, where English belong, it’s impossible to place a word without analyzing it in the sent. in addition to the analysis of the morphological features of this word. This approach was developed by Russian linguists (Vinogradov, Smirnitsky, Ilyish). There are three principles on which this classification is based:

1. meaning (the meaning common to all the words of a given class and constituting its essence- сущность):e.g. thingness of nouns,process of verbs 2. form( the morphological characteristics of a type of word): e.g. noun is characterized by the category of number, prepositions, conjunctions and others are characterized by invariability 3. function (the syntactical properties of a type of word) the method of combining with other words (deals with phrases) its function in the sentence (deals with sentences)
The syntactic (functional) approach: Only the syntactic function of a word should be taken into consideration as a criterion for p/of/sp classification.
6. The principles of the part-of-speech classification suggested by Russian grammarians
It will also be seen that the theory of parts of speech, though considered by most scholars to be a part of morphology,2 cannot do without touching on some syntactical problems, namely on phrases and on syntactical functions of words (point 3 in our list of criteria). We shall regard the theory of parts of speech as essentially a part of morphology, involving, however, some syntactical points.

2 Some scholars took a different view of the problem. Thus, Academician A. Shakhmatov held that parts of speech should be treated in Syntax. (See A. A. Шахматов, Синтаксис русского языка, 1941.)
The principles of p/of/sp classification suggested by Russian grammarians

Vinogradov –> Russian grammar

Smirnitsky, Ilyish –> English grammar

There are three principles on which the classification is based:

  1. meaning

the meaning common to all the words of a given class and constituting its essence.

e.g. thingness of nouns

process of verbs

  1. form

the morphological characteristics of a type of word

e.g. noun is characterized by the category of number

prepositions, conjunctions and others are characterized by invariability

  1. function

the syntactical properties of a type of word

    1. the method of combining with other words (deals with phrases)

    2. its function in the sentence (deals with sentences


7. Charles Fries’ classification of words

Ch. F worked out the principles of syntactico-distributional (s-d) classification of English words. He was the follower of the famous linguist L. Bloomfield.

The s-d classification of words is based on the study of their combinability by means of substitution testing. The testing results in developing the standard model of four main “positions” of notional words in the English sentence:

For his materials he chose tape recorded spontaneous conversation (250,000 word entries or 50 hours of talk). The words isolated from the records were tested on the three typical sentences (also taken from the tapes), which are used as substitution test-frames.

Frame A. The concert was good (always). [The thing and its quality at a given time]

Frame B. The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly). [“Actor-action-thing acted upon” –characteristic of the action]

Frame C. The team went there. [“Actor-action-direction of the action”]

As a result of those tests the following lists of words were established:

Class 1. (A) concert, coffee, taste, container, difference, etc. (B) clerk, husband, supervisor, etc.; tax, food, coffee, etc. (C) team, husband, woman, etc.

Class 2. (A) was, seemed, became, etc. (B) remembered, wanted, saw, suggested etc. (C) went, came, ran, lived, worked, etc.

Class 3. (A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new empty, etc.

Class 4. (A) there, here, always, then, sometimes, etc. (B) clearly, sufficiently, especially, repeatedly, soon, etc. (C) there, back, out, etc.; rapidly, eagerly, confidently, etc.

All these words can fill in the positions of the frames without affection their general structural meaning. Repeated interchanges in the substitutions of the primarily identified positional (notional) words in diff. collocations determine their morphological characteristics.

Functional words are exposed in the cited process as being unable to fill in the positions of the frames without destroying their structural meaning. These words form limited groups totaling 154 units. They can be distributed among the three main sets:

  1. specifiers of notional words (determiners of nouns, modal verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of adjectives and adverbs)

  2. interpositional elements, determining the relation of notional words to one another (prepositions and conjunctions)

  3. refer to the sentence as a whole (question words, attention-getting words, words of affirmation and negation, sentence introducers (it, there))


8. The Category of Number in English nouns. In modern English there are 2 numbers: sg and pl. This category of the noun is based on the opposition of 2 form-classes: the sg form of the noun and the pl form of the noun. The difference in meaning. The pl. form has a mean of plurality, the sg form has a mean of singularity. Grammatical mean. The pl form always conveys the idea of quantitative mean of oneness and it can be outside the sphere of number in the case of uncountable nouns. The difference in form. The pl form is the marked member. The ending –s or –es is the productive marker which has allomorphs: [s], [z] and [iz]. The sg form is the unmarked member of the opposition. Some grammarians speak of the zero-suffix of the sg form. There are also non-productive markers of the pl form: 1. Vowel interchange in some relict forms. 2. The archaic suffix –en, -n. E.g. child-children (+sound interchange). 3. In the words of Latin origin: nucleus-nuclei, focus-foci, stratum-strata. In most of these cases suffixes –s, -es can be used. 4. In some nouns the pl form is homonymous with the sg form: sheep-sheep, fish-fish. With regard of the category of number nouns fall into countable and uncountable. Countable nouns name objects that can be counted. Uncountable nouns name objects that exist as a kind of unity. The later class comprises 2 subclasses: nouns, denoting material substances (air, water) and names of abstract notions (peace, wisdom). The 2 subclasses are outside the sphere of number from the point of view of their semantics. They have no quantitative characteristics. But from gram point of view they cannot be outside the sphere of number because they agree with the verb in the sg. These 2 subclasses sometimes referred to as Singularia tantum. The direct opposite of this group is the group called Pluralia tantum. These nouns have only the pl form (trousers, scissors, tongs, outskirts). There are nouns denoting objects that consist of 2 halves and nouns of indefinite plurality. These nouns should not be confused with the names of sciences (mathematics, phonetics, politics) which can agree with the verb in the sg and they should not be confused with the names of diseases either (measles, mumps) which agree with the verb in the sg. The group of collective nouns that denote a group of objects as a whole. We can distinguish 3 subgroups: 1. nouns like crowd and army which agree with the verb in the sg. They are collective nouns proper (сущ-ые с объединительной собирательностью). 2. words like the police and the gentry. They agree with the verb in the pl. They are called nouns of multitude (сущ-ые с разделительной собирательностью). 3. nouns like family, herd, flock which agree with the verb either in the sg or in the pl. They can denote a group of objects as a whole and discreetly.
9. The Problem of the Category of Case in Modern Eng Case can be defined in the following way: it is a category of the noun that expresses relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other objects and phenomena and that is manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This category is based on the opposition of 2 cases: the Common case (H.Sweet) – the Possessive case (Genitive – preferable because not all mean-s of this case are possessive). The general mean of possession has other modifications. It can denote the subject of a quality, state of action: the child's intelligence (quality), the child's sleep (state), the child's answer (action). Occasionally it can denote the object of an action: Clyde Griffiths' trial and execution. The opposition in form. The Genitive case is a marked member, the nominative is unmarked. The marker of the GC is the 's-sign which also has 3 allomorphs which are [s], [z] and [iz]. Various views on the category of case. The number of cases and the recognition of the category as such depends on whether case is treated as a morphological form or as a grammatical mean that can be rendered by various means (by an inflection, preposition and word order). Different theories. 1. The 3-case theory or the substitutional theory. Was prompted by the fact that in Old English there existed one common case system for both nouns and personal pronouns. Some grammarians try to introduce a uniform case system in Modern English. Accordingly there are 3 cases recognized in the noun: Nominative, Objective and Genitive. The GC is inflected by the 's-sign. As to the NC and OC they are identified by substituting a personal pronoun for the noun. E.g.: The boy's playing in the garden. – The noun boy is in the NC because it can be replaced by the personal pronoun he. Look at the boy. – The noun boy is in the OC because it can be replaced by him. This theory was criticized and rejected by many grammarians because you cannot attribute the properties of one part of speech to another. 2. The theory of positional cases. It is connected with the old grammatical tradition and we find it in the works of German scholars (Дойчбайн, Несфилд, Брайант). According to that view the case of the noun is determined by its position in the sent by analogy with classical Latin grammar. The English noun will distinguish the following cases of the noun: Nominative, Vocative, Dative, Accusative. They are not inflectional. They exist along with the inflectional genitive. The noun in the function of the position of the subject is in the NC. The noun in the position of a direct address is believed to be in the VC. The noun in the position of an indirect object to a verb is believed to be in the DC. The noun in the position of a direct object is in the AC. The theory was bitterly criticized. The main weakness of it is that it substitutes the functional characteristics of parts of the sent for the morphological characteristics of the part of speech, that is the noun. 3. The theory of prepositional cases (Curmy, also connected with the old school grammar teaching). Acc. to this theory, combinations of nouns and pronouns should be considered as case form: 1. the combination to + noun (to the child) is treated as the DC. 2. the combination of + noun is treated as the GC which exists along with the Inflectional Genitive. 3. the combination by + N is treated as the Instrumental Case. Curmy treats prepositions in these combinations as inflexional prepositions. They are gram elements that are equivalent to case inflexions. Other grammarians treat these combinations as analytical cases. This approach is unconvincing and cannot be accepted for the following reasons: 1. Prep-s are not devoid of their lexical mean and they cannot be treated as gram auxiliaries of an analytical form. 2. The number of prepositional phrases is too numerous to be regarded members of the opposition of the category of case. 3. There are no discontinous morphemes. They cannot be treated as analytical forms.
10. The theory denying the existence of the category of case in Modern Eng. The theory was advanced by Prof. Воронцова and is shared by Мухин, Ильиш, Маслова. Acc to this view the Eng noun has lost the category of case in the historic development. All cases, including genitive, are considered extinct. The following arguments are given to substantiate this theory: 1. the use of the s-sign is optional because it can be replaced by an of-phrase. 2. it is used with a limited group of nouns (animate nouns and some other nouns, denoting distance, time and money). 3. it occurs with very few plurals, only with such plurals as men (men's). As to the other it is impossible to distinguish the sg genitive from the pl genitive by ear. 4. The s-signs is only loosely connected with the noun. It can be used not only with sg nouns but also with whole phrases, e.g.: John and Tom's room. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. The man I saw yesterday's son. (the s-signs belongs to the whole phrase, not to a single word). So Воронцова makes the following conclusion: the s-signs is not a case inflexion, it is a syntactical element, resembling a preposition. She calls it a postposition or a format. This is why Блох calls this theory the Possessive Postposition Theory. The strong points of this theory is that it is based on careful observation of linguistic data. Yet, it can hardly be accepted, because it disregards the fact that the genitive form of the noun is systematically contrasted to the unmarked form of the noun. The oppositional nature of this correlation cannot be denied. So, if there is an opposition, there is a category. For that reason most linguists stick to the theory which is called the Limited Case Theory. Блох gives other arguments in favor of the LCT. 1. He emphasizes the fact that the phrasal uses of s-sign are stylistically colored. For that reason these cases can hardly be used as arguments against the existence of the category of case. 2. The s-sign differs from ordinary functional words, like prepositions, because it is morpheme-like in its phonetic properties and also because it is strictly postpositional unlike prepositions and it is far more bound element than a preposition. So Блох suggests that the s-sign has a particle nature and he compares it with the Russian particle бы. Блох believes that the solution of the problem of the category of case is to be sought by combining the LCT with the Possessive Postposition Theory. His conclusion is that a peculiar case system has developed instead of the former inflectional case of nouns. It is based on the particle expression of the Genitive and falls into 2 subtypes, which are the word-genitive and the phrase-genitive.

11. The problem of the number of articles in Modern Eng. There are 2 major theories on the status of article. The 1st considers the combination of the article with the noun to be an analytical form of the noun, the article being an auxiliary element; the second theory treats the article as a separate word, a functional part of speech, namely a noun-determiner, and the combination of the article with the noun is considered to be a phrase, not an analytical form. There is no unanimity of views on this problem. There are only 2 material articles: the definite and the indefinite articles. Yet, the distinction between, for instance, "a speech" and "the speech" is incomplete. It must be complimented by one more member: "speech" without any article: The divine gift of speech. The 3rd member of this opposition is treated differently. In traditional grammars the absence of the article was sometimes described as the omission of the article. It is wrong to use the word "omission" because the article is omitted only in certain styles (in telegrams, announcements and newspaper headlines). Sometimes the phenomenon is described as the meaningful absence of the article. Acc to another point of view, there exist a special kind of article called the zero article. This notion can be traced to the notion of the zero morpheme. The idea of the zero article is not shared by all. Иванова, Почепцова find this idea shaky on the following grounds. They say that existence of a zero article can be recognized only if we interpret the article as a morpheme. Yet we cannot do so because the article can be separated from the noun (a question, an urgent question) and because articles can be replaced by pronouns. They go on to say that if we admit that the article is a word then a notion of a zero word should be considered. This notion, however, is unacceptable. So acc. to Иванова, Почепцова, there is no such thing as a zero article. This statement is not very convincing because there are various kinds of words. In Russian there is a zero copula: Он здоров and it is contrasted Он был здоров, будет здоров. The copula быть has 3 forms: был, будет, zero form for the Present. So there is every reason to believe that the zero-form of the copula and the zero article are similar phenomena. Ильиш is also very cautious. He does not recognize the zero article, he recognizes the zero form of the article. As to Блох, he does not recognize the existence of the zero article and defines it as a special kind of gram auxiliary. He treats the combination of an article with a noun as an analytical form and, remaining true to himself, he sets up a separate gram category, the category of determination of the noun. It is based on a 3-member opposition, where the definite article is opposed to the indefinite article and to the zero article. The noun, then, has 3 gram categories: number, case, determination.
12. Notional words and function words in Modern English.

Parts of speech are traditionally subdivided into notional & functional ones. Notional parts of speech have both lexical & grammatical meanings (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, numerals, statives, pronouns, modal words). Functional parts of speech are characterized mainly by the grammatical meaning while their lexical meaning is either lost completely or has survived in a very weakened form.

Functional parts of speech—the article, the preposition, the conjunction. Notional parts of speech are characterized by word-building & word-changing properties; functional words have no formal features & they should be memorized as ready-made units (but, since, till, until). Another most important difference between functional & notional parts of speech is revealed on the level of sentence. Where every notional word performs a certain synthetic function while functional words have no synthetic function at all. They serve as indicators of a certain part of speech (to + verb; a, the + noun). Prepositions are used to connect 2 words & conjunctions to connect 2 clauses or sentences.

Ilyish => Some grammarians think that words should be divided into two categories on the following principle:

notional words denote things, actions and other extra-linguistic phenomena

functional words denote relations and connections between the notional words

This view is shaky, because functional words can also express smth extra-linguistic:

e.g. The letter is on the table.

The letter is in the table. (diff. prepositions express different relations between objects)

The match was called off because it was raining. (the conjunction because denotes the causal connection between two processes).

Some words belonging to a particular part of speech may perform a function differing from that which characterizes the p/of/sp as a whole.

e.g. I have some money left. (have – a notional word)

I have found a dog. (have – an auxiliary verb used to form a certain analytical form of the verb to find, i.e. it is a functional verb)


13. The characteristic features of the form-building affixes.

  1. They express/change gr.meaning unlike word-building suffixes which change lex.meaning.

  2. The number of grammatical affixes is small and fixed. (the number of word-building suffixes is much larger).

  3. Like lexical suffixes they can be productive and non-productive. The ZERO mrph. is the most productive.

Affixation is the most productive means of expressing a grammatical meaning. The number of grammatical suffixes is small (8). They are:-s, -ed, -ing, -er, -est, -en, -m (him, them, whom), zero.
1). –s/-es 2). –ed 3). –ing + 6). –er (comparative degree) 7). –est 8). the ZERO morpheme. – productive

4). –en/-n 5). –m - non-productive.

  1. They can be polysemantic like lexical suffixes. 0 is the most polysemantic.

1). –s/-es 2). –ed 3). –ing 4). –en/-n 6). –er (comparative degree) 7). –est 8). the ZERO morpheme – polysemantic

5). –m - monosemantic.

There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of form-building types is into synthetical and analytical. In a synthetical type a grammatical meaning is expressed within a word, in an analytical type a grammatical meaning is expressed with the help of auxiliary words (plus suffixes). The synthetical types of form-building in English include affixation (reads, shown, books, theirs etc.), sound interchange (take - took, shine - shone) and suppletivity (go - went, be -was, good - better - best}. .The only productive type in the present-day English is affixation, but the other two types are no less important, if only because they occur in words which are most frequently used. The analytical type of form-building occupies a very important place in the grammatical structure of English as the language has evolutionized from being mainly synthetical to becoming more and more analytical, and analytical tendencies in the present day English are very strong. There exist the so-called half-analytical structures and the analytical tendencies find their reflection in many spheres of the language.


14. Analtyical forms and their role in form-building.

It’s more productive in Modern Eng. Traditionally an analytical form is defined this way: it consists of an auxiliary word and the basic element, which is a notional word. This definition is ambiguous. And for that reason some strange forms are treated as analytical: Combinations of prepositions with nouns were treated as different analytical forms: to the child was treated as the Dative case of a noun. by the child was treated as the Instrumental case of a noun. Many linguists criticized this approach to defining analytical forms and certain theories have been worked out to differentiate analytical forms and free word-combinations. 1. The theory of the splitting of functions. According to this theory in a true analytical form the auxiliary element should be the bearer of the grammatical meaning only. It is devoid of lexical meaning. It is the notional word that is the bearer of lexical meaning. According to this approach there exist 2 types of analytical forms: complete and incomplete. In a complete analytical form the splitting process has completed and the aux.element is completely devoid of lex.meaning. e.g. In the form of the Perfect the verb to have has no meaning of possession. In an incomplete analyt.form the aux.element retains traces of its lex.meaning. e.g. The form of the Continuous where the auxiliary be retains traces of it's meaning of the state. 2.Acc. to the second approach a true ananlty.form is idiomatic in characterthe overall meaning of the form is not immediately dependent on the individual meaning of its constituents. It’s not a sum of meanings of its components. Besides an analyt.form also functions as a grammatical form of a single word. If we proceed from this approach we should conclude that such phrases as most interesting are not an analytical form, because it is not idiomatic enough. 3. Acc. to Бархударов a true analyt.form should posses a discontinuous morpheme (расчлененная морфема) which is a main distinguishing feature of an analyt.form (Блох doesn’t share this view). A discontinuous mrph. Consists of 2 elements – an auxiliary word and the f.-b. sign of a notional word. The root-mrph of the notional word. is not included. According to Бархударов there are only 3 analytical forms (Perfect, Passive, Continuous): Have+en (insymbolic denotation) in form of the Perfect. Ex. have arrived Be+en in form of the Passive Be+ing in form of the Continuous. And from this point of view such phrases as shall take most interesting, by the child are not analytical forms. They are free word-combination.

There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of form-building types is into synthetical and analytical. In a synthetical type a grammatical meaning is expressed within a word, in an analytical type a grammatical meaning is expressed with the help of auxiliary words (plus suffixes). The synthetical types of form-building in English include affixation (reads, shown, books, theirs etc.), sound interchange (take - took, shine - shone) and suppletivity (go - went, be -was, good - better - best}. .The only productive type in the present-day English is affixation, but the other two types are no less important, if only because they occur in words which are most frequently used. The analytical type of form-building occupies a very important place in the grammatical structure of English as the language has evolutionized from being mainly synthetical to becoming more and more analytical, and analytical tendencies in the present day English are very strong. There exist the so-called half-analytical structures and the analytical tendencies find their reflection in many spheres of the language.
15. Correlation between various means of form-building.

Analytical form-building means are more typical of English. However it would be wrong to underestimate the role of synthetic elements. They are very important and the following points prove it:

1. Synthetic form-building affixes are few in number but widely used. Besides some of them are productive.

2. Analytical forms comprise synthetic forms, which also proves their importance. e.g. has prepared. (have  has – synthetic form).

3. Although sound interchange is non-productive it is frequently used in the forms of irregular verbs.

4. Suppletive forms are few in number and non-productive but we find them in the paradigm of some most frequently used words. Ex.: to be, to go; good, bad.

So we should conclude that English cannot be called a purely analytical language. It is mainly analytical. The famous Danish linguist Jespersen called English an ideal language. He even developed the idea of superiority of analytical languages which reflects a more developed mentality.

There are several types of form-building in English. The main subdivision of form-building types is into synthetical and analytical. In a synthetical type a grammatical meaning is expressed within a word, in an analytical type a grammatical meaning is expressed with the help of auxiliary words (plus suffixes). The synthetical types of form-building in English include affixation (reads, shown, books, theirs etc.),sound interchange (take - took, shine - shone) and suppletivity (go - went, be -was, good - better - best}. .The only productive type in the present-day English is affixation, but the other two types are no less important, if only because they occur in words which are most frequently used. The analytical type of form-building occupies a very important place in the grammatical structure of English as the language has evolutionized from being mainly synthetical to becoming more and more analytical, and analytical tendencies in the present day English are very strong. There exist the so-called half-analytical structures and the analytical tendencies find their reflection in many spheres of the language.


16. Suppletive means of form-building in ME.

There are two principal types of form-building means: synthetic and analytical.

The synthetic form-building means is the expression of the relation of words in the sentence by means of a change in the word itself. There are three types of the synthetic form-building means:

  1. affixation

  2. sound interchange (morphological alteration)

  3. suppletion (suppletive means)


Affixation is the most productive means of expressing a grammatical meaning. The number of grammatical suffixes is small (8). They are:-s, -ed, -ing, -er, -est, -en, -m (him, them, whom), zero.

Sound interchange is a change of a sound in the root of the word. There exist two kinds of sound interchange – vowel and consonant ones (spend – spent). This type of form-building means is non-productive.

In suppletive forms there is a complete change of the phonetic shape of the root. Suppletive forms belonging to the paradigm of a certain word were borrowed from different sources. Suppletive forms are found in the paradigm of such words as TO BE, TO GO, degrees of comparison of the adjectives GOOD, BAD and in case-forms of some pronouns (I-me, she-her, we-us). Блох notes that suppletivity can be recognized in the paradigm of some modal verbs too: CAN – BE ABLE, MUST – HAVE TO, MAY – BE ALLOWED. Moreover, he says that it can be observed in pronouns (ONE – SOME), NOUNS (INFORMATION – PIECES OF INFORMATION, MAN – PEOPLE). Suppletive forms are few in number, non-productive, but very important, for they are frequently used

Analytical forms were described as a combination of an auxiliary and a notional word.

This definition is not precise enough and due to its ambiguity (неясность) such word-combinations as TO THE CHILD, MORE INTERESTING were treated as analytical forms. To define a true analytical form the theory of splitting (разделение) of functions should be taken into account. There must be a splitting of functions between the elements of an analytical form. The first (auxiliary) element is the bearer of a grammatical meaning only. It is completely devoid of lexical meaning, and it is the second (notional) element that is the bearer of lexical meaning.

This process can be complete (perfect form) or incomplete (continuous form). The idiomaticity of an analytical form is a characteristic of a true analytical form. An analytical form functions as a grammatical form of a word. Analytical forms are much more typical of ME. Synthetic form-building means are few in number but widely used. Some grammatical suffixes are very productive.Analytical forms comprise synthetic forms. Although sound interchange is non-productive it is extensively used through the paradigm of the irregular verbs. Though suppletive forms are found through the paradigm of very few words they are very frequently used words.

So we should conclude that English cannot be called a purely analytical language. It is mainly analytical.
  1   2   3   4   5
Учебный текст
© perviydoc.ru
При копировании укажите ссылку.
обратиться к администрации