- •С.В. Иванова
- •Ббк 81.2 Англ
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Preface to the second edition
- •Major trends in Theoretical Grammar of the English language
- •Classical English grammar
- •Transformational grammar
- •Functional Communicative Approach
- •Cognitive Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics
- •Supplementary literature:
- •2. Major grammatical notions
- •Language as a system
- •Chart 1. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations
- •Chart 2. Paradigmatic patterns of a clause by m.A.K. Halliday
- •Interrogative→ “wh”
- •Indicative→ declarative→
- •Imperative → jussive38 →
- •Inclusive
- •Grammatical meaning, grammatical form and grammatical category
- •E.G. Work –worked
- •The notion of opposition in Theoretical Grammar
- •Synthetic and analytic forms
- •Morphology and Syntax as two main parts of grammar
- •Chart 3. The scope of morphology
- •Inflection word-formation
- •3. The notion of a morpheme
- •The idea and the definition of the morpheme
- •Types of morphemes
- •Problems connected with the notion of a morpheme
- •Characteristic features of inflectional morphology and types of word-form derivation
- •4. The parts of speech system
- •In foreign linguistics
- •Introduction to the problem
- •Classification of parts of speech suggested by Henry Sweet
- •3. O. Jespersen’s classification of parts of speech
- •4. Principles of the classification of words suggested by Charles Fries
- •Woggles ugged diggles
- •Uggs woggled digs
- •5. Classifications of parts of speech developed within structuralist linguistics
- •6. R. Quirk’s approach to the problem in his
- •Verb Preposition
- •Interjection
- •Modern grammars of contemporary English
- •5. The parts of speech system
- •In russian linguistics
- •The main criteria for the classification of parts of speech in Russian Linguistics
- •The concept of notional and formal words
- •6. The article
- •1. The status of the article in English
- •2. The number of articles in English
- •3. The categorial meaning and the functions of the article
- •7. Noun and its grammatical categories
- •Introduction. The categories of gender and number
- •The category of case
- •The syntactic function of the noun
- •8. The verb. General characteristics
- •The verb. General overview
- •2. The categories of person and number
- •3. The category of tense
- •9. The category of aspect
- •In modern english
- •The definition of aspect as a verbal category
- •Different approaches to the interpretation of aspect
- •The connection of the aspect interpretation with other lexicological issues: terminative and durative verbs
- •The correlation of the English aspect forms and Russian aspect forms
- •10. The category of retrospective coordination
- •The problem of the Perfect forms in the system of the English language
- •2. Different approaches to the interpretation of perfect forms
- •Interpretation of perfect forms as an independent grammatical category
- •11. The category of mood in modern english
- •1. The category of mood and its semantic content
- •Debatable issues connected with the interpretation of the category of mood
- •12. The category of voice
- •In modern english
- •The nature of the grammatical category of voice
- •2. Debatable problems within the category of voice
- •He told me a story.
- •3. The notion of transitivity
- •13. Syntax
- •Syntax as a branch of grammar
- •Units of syntactic description
- •The theory of phrase
- •Types of syntactic relations (linkage)
- •14. The sentence
- •The sentence: the problem of its definition
- •2. The sentence. Its major categories
- •3. Typology of the sentence
- •15. Sentence as an object of syntactic studies
- •Major features of the sentence as a syntactic unit
- •Syntactic structure of the sentence as an object of linguistic studies
- •Immediate constituents of the sentence: ic analysis
- •Adjoinment - the use of specifying words, most often particles: He did it – Only he did it.
- •The utterance. Informative structure of the utterance
- •Basic notions of pragmatic linguistics
- •Speech act theory. Direct and indirect speech acts. Types of speech acts
- •Discourse analysis as the study of language in use
- •Implicatures of discourse
- •Implicatures and indirectness
- •It is only due to making an assumption about the relevance of b’s response that we can understand it as an answer to a’s question.
- •A List of Selected Bibliography
- •List of reference and practice books
- •Terminological dictionaries
- •Seminars in theoretical grammar
- •Contents
Cognitive Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics (George Lakoff, Leonard Talmy, Ronald Langacker, Mark Johnson, Mark Turner, Gilles Fauconnier, Charles Fillmore, Ray Jackendoff, R. Dirven) is a school of linguistics and cognitive science that “sees language as part of, and in interaction with, the cognitive abilities of the human mind such as perception, memory, attention, emotion, reasoning, etc.”30. Within the cognitive approach language is regarded “as a tool of conceptualization and hence the meaningfulness of language” [Radden, Dirven 2007]. Thus, cognitive linguistics is a school of linguistic thought that tends to characterize language in relation to more general cognitive processes. Cognition in a broad sense includes thought processes, consciousness, and perception and the result of all these activities. The guiding principle behind this area of linguistics is that language use must be explained with reference to the underlying mental processes.
Cognitive Linguistics is a challenge to Saussurean linguistics as well as it is opposed to generative linguistics. Cognitive linguistics does not recognize (1) classical definitions of categories, (2) dichotomies such as langue vs. parole, synchrony vs. diachrony, syntax vs. semantic, lexis vs. grammar, etc., (3) linguistic knowledge as detached from other types of knowledge, especially encyclopedic knowledge31. On the other hand, linguists emphasize the role of generative semantics and transformational generative grammar which paved way towards cognitive semantics and cognitive linguistics at large.
Cognitive Linguistics is divided into two main areas of study: cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar. Ronald Langacker started developing cognitive grammar in 1976. The model of his cognitive grammar includes semantic and syntactic theories. A Cognitive Grammar sees grammar as part of human cognition. It is usage-based as it offers a native speaker a variety of structural options. Grammatical forms, like lexical items are meaningful and “never empty”. “The grammar of a language represents the whole of a native speaker’s knowledge of both the lexical categories and the grammatical structure of the language” [Radden, Dirven 2007: XI-XII].
The major tenets of cognitive grammar comprise a number of principles:
1). Cognitive Linguistics sees itself as a usage-based approach to language. The basic claim of Cognitive Linguistics is that “usage events define and continuously redefine the language system in a dynamic way”. Thus, the grammar is not only “a knowledge repository” to be employed but also the product of language use32.
2). Language is not a self-contained system, it cannot be described without reference to cognitive processing. Cognitive processes such as generalization, specialization, metaphor and metonymy are described as responsible for a concrete linguistic expression. These processes map source domain onto more abstract target domain. Or, in other words, abstract thought is strongly based on our bodily and spatial experience33. Thus, cognitive linguists arrive at the conclusion that “language structure resides primarily in individual minds” 34.
3). Lexicon, morphology and syntax form a continuum of symbolic or, in other words, iconic elements.
4). As a result, grammatical structures do not constitute an autonomous formal system or level of representation. The analysis of grammatical units is connected with their semantic value. Grammar is seen as forming a continuum with lexicon.
5). Semantic structures reflect the content of the situation as well as the way this content is arranged and interpreted [Langacker 1991: IX, 1].
R. W. Langacker claims that cognitive grammar is quite distinct from any kind of generative theory for it sees the use of syntactic structures “as a reflection of how a situation is conceptualized by the speaker, and this conceptualization is governed by the attention principle. Salient participants, especially agents, are rendered as subjects and less salient participants as objects; verbs are selected which are compatible with the choice of subject and object, and evoke the perspective on the situation that is intended; locative, temporal and many other types of relations are highlighted or “windowed for attention” by expressing them explicitly as adverbials. Although languages may supply different linguistic strategies for the realization of the attention potential, the underlying cognitive structures and principles are probably universal”35.
The cognitive approach is considered a viable and attractive model of linguistic description. It embraces not only lexis and grammar, it also includes pragmatic and discourse studies as well as dwells upon language functions and structure.
Recommended literature:
Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1966. – С. 20-29.
Блох М.Я. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка: Учебное пособие/ М.Я. Блох, Т.Н. Семенова, С.В. Тимофеева. – М.: Высшая школа, 2004. – С. 12-15, 33-36, 71-75, 348-350.
Иофик Л.Л., Чахоян Л.П. Хрестоматия по теоретической грамматике английского языка. – Л.: Изд-во «Просвещение», 1967. – С. 3-38.
Иофик Л.Л., Чахоян Л.П., Поспелова А.Г. Хрестоматия по теоретической грамматике. – Л.: Изд-во «Просвещение», 1981. – С. 5-40.
Современная американская лингвистика: Функциональные направления / Под ред. А.А. Кибрика, И.М. Кобозевой и И.А. Секериной. – М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2002. – С. 13-167, 276- 344, 356-368.
Худяков А.А. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2005. – С. 142-163.
Valeika L., Buitkiené J. An Introductory Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University, 2003. – P. 13-35.