- •Л.А.Панасенко краткий курс лекций по теоретической грамматике аглийского языка. Синтаксис Учебно-методическое пособие
- •L e c t u r e 1. Syntax and its main units. Traditional and cognitive approaches in syntax
- •I. Syntax as part of grammar. The main units of syntax.
- •II. Traditional and cognitive understanding of syntax.
- •III. The basic principles and arguments of the cognitive linguistics.
- •IV. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning.
- •L e c t u r e 2. Syntax of the phrase
- •I. Traditional conceptions of phrases in home linguistics and abroad.
- •IV. Phrase theory in cognitive linguistics (j.R. Taylor’s conception).
- •L e c t u r e 3. The simple sentence: traditional interpretation
- •I. The simple sentence as a monopredicative unit.
- •III. Paradigmatics of the simple sentence.
- •L e c t u r e 4. The simple sentence: alternative conceptions
- •I..The verbocentric conception of the sentence.
- •II. The semantic interpretation of the sentence.
- •III. The cognitive aspects of the simple sentence.
- •High Low
- •L e c t u r e 5. Actual division of the sentence. Communicative types of sentences
- •I. Actual division of the sentence and means of expressing it.
- •III. The problem of classification of sentence according to the purpose of
- •L e c t u r e 6. Syntax of a composite sentence: the structure of a complex sentence
- •II. Classifications of complex sentences according to the types of clauses in
- •III. Other classifications of complex sentences in Modern English.
- •L e c t u r e 7. Syntax of a composite sentence: the compound sentence. The structure and types of semi-composite sentences in modern english
- •II. The structure of a semi-composite sentence. Types of semi-composite
- •L e c t u r e 8. Semantic aspects of syntactic constructions. Sentence typology within a cognitive approach
- •I. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts
- •II. The problem of sentence typology within a cognitive approach.
- •L e c t u r e 9. Text as an object of syntactic study
- •I. The inter-sentence connections in the text.
- •The president emotionally declared that he was “glad to be home”. Then
- •II. The textual linguistics.
- •F u r t h e r r e a d I n g s o n e n g l I s h s y n t a X: c o g n I t I V e a p p r o a c h
- •1. On syntagmatic relations
- •(From “cognitive grammar” by j.R. Taylor)
- •2. On sentence typology: clause types and clause structure (from “cognitive grammar” by j.R. Taylor)
- •3. Semantics of the constructions (from “constructions” by a.Goldberg)
- •D I t r a n s I t I V e c o n s t r u c t I o n
- •C a u s e d – m o t I o n c o n s t r u c t I o n
- •The construction is associated with a category of related senses:
- •4. Event integration in syntax
- •Schemas of the macro-event Linguistic representation
- •Type of support relation between Linguistic representation a co-event and a framing event
- •S t a t e c h a n g e a s t h e f r a m I n g e V e n t
- •Type of support relation between Linguistic representation a co-event and a framing event
- •L e c t u r e 2. Syntax of the phrase ………………………………9
Schemas of the macro-event Linguistic representation
|
Motion as the framing event is realized through “Path”. The co-event is a “self-contained motion”- aspectually unbounded activity, such as rotation, oscillation, local wander, etc.
Motion is realized through “Path + Ground”. The co-event is an action.
|
1.The ball rolled / bounced down the hall. “Path” is represented by the prepositional phrase; “co-event” (“self-contained motion”) – by the verb-predicate.
2.He drove her home. 3. I kicked the door shut. “Path + Ground” is represented by the satellites (home (2), shut (3).
|
Type of support relation between Linguistic representation a co-event and a framing event
|
Manner: This type of relation presupposes that the co-event is an additional activity, performed concurrently with the framing event
Manner subtypes: Agentive Manner (there is an Agent, who performs the additional activity (co-event) which leads to and causes the framing event itself) Nonagentive Manner (the source of the co-event (additional activity) is the moving figure itself)
Cause This type of relation presupposes that the co-event is an additional activity which causes the co-event , which in turn causes the framing event.
Cause subtypes: Agentive Cause (the source of the cause of motion is an Agent)
Nonagentive Cause (the source of the cause is not explicitly expressed)
|
1. I rolled the pen across the table. (= I acted on the pen and made it move across the table, rolling as it went.)
|
S t a t e c h a n g e a s t h e f r a m I n g e V e n t
The macro-event framed by a state change event consists of a co-event (any process or activity that determines the dynamics of the macro-event and causes a change in some of its property) and a framing event “state change”, which announces the result or final stage of the dynamics of the macro-event.
The analysis of linguistic expressions suggests that the schema of the macro-event is that of the motion event: “Path” or “Path + Ground”. Within the structure of the macro-event, state change as a framing event is more abstract than a co-event and often involves change in an individual’s cognitive state. For example, state changes may include “to become awake / aware / familiar / in possession / existent / nonexistent / dead etc. The co-event is concrete and physical (compare the verb predicates in the examples below). The most prevalent type of relation between a co-event and framing event are the same as with the case of motion (Manner and Cause).