
- •Seminar 1 syntax as part of grammar Topics for Discussion
- •Literature
- •Practical Tasks
- •Seminar 2
- •Practical Tasks
- •Seminar 3 syntax of the simple sentence: traditional view Topics for Discussion
- •Topics for Reports
- •Literature
- •Practical Tasks
- •Syntax of the simple sentence: alternative approaches Topics for Discussion
- •Literature
- •Practical tasks
- •Seminar 5
- •Seminar 6
- •Practical tasks
- •I. State the type of clause connection and identify the semantic relation between clauses in the following compound sentences:
- •Seminar 7 syntax of the complex sentence Topics for Discussion
- •Topics for Reports
- •Literature
- •Practical tasks
- •Seminar 8
- •Practical tasks
- •Seminar 9
- •Practical tasks
- •Seminar 10
- •Practical tasks
- •The ditransitive construction
- •The caused-motion construction
- •Seminar 11
- •Practical tasks
- •I. State the type of inter-sentence relation. Identify the means of sentence
- •Revision Test yourself:
- •Topics for reports and course projects:
- •Examination questions:
Seminar 10
SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS: COGNITIVE APPROACH
Topics for Discussion
1.The principle of Figure-Ground Segregation in structural and semantic
organization of the sentence.
2. The problem of sentence classification within the cognitive approach.
3. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts
represented by syntactic constructions.
Topics for Reports
1. Types of concepts represented by the simple sentence (see: ФурсЛ.А.
Когнитивные аспекты синтаксиса английского простого
предложения. – Тамбов, 2005, С. 78-86).
2. The notions “event integration” and “macro-event”. Linguistic patterns for the
representation of macro–events (see: Further readings on syntax in this book from
L.Talmy “Toward a cognitive semantics”.
Literature
1. Lectures on syntax (this book).
2. Фурс Л.А. Когнитивные аспекты синтаксиса английского простого
предложения. –Тамбов, 2005.
3. Goldberg Adele E. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument
structure. – Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1995.
4. Events as Grammatical Objects. Ed. by C.Tenny and J.Pustejovsky, CSLI
Publications, 2000.
5. Fauconnier G., Turner M. Blending as a central process of grammar//Goldberg
A.(ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. – Stanford, Cal.:
CSLI Publications, 1996.- P.113-131.
6. Kay P., Fillmore C. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:
“The what’s X doing Y? construction”, Language 75: pp. 1-33, 1999.
7. Mandelblit N. The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: From
syntax to morphology // Cognitive Linguistics 2000, 3-4, P. 197-206.
8. Talmy L. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition //Topics in Cognitive
Linguistics. – Amsterdam, 1988. – P.165-207.
9. Talmy L. The windowing of Attention in Language // Grammatical
Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. – Oxford, 1996. – P. 235-287.
10. Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. – Massachusetts:Institute of
Technology, 2000.
11. Ungerer F., Schmid H.-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. –
L., N.Y., 1996.
12. Zucchi A. The language of Propositions and Events. Dordrecht, 1993.
13. Болдырев Н.Н., Фурс Л.А. Репрезентация языковых и неязыковых
знаний синтаксическими средствами// Филологические науки, 2004, №
3, стр. 67-74.
14. Скобликова Е.С. Концептосфера человека и модели предложения//
Филологические науки, 2001, № 4, стр.45-54.
15. Сулейманова О.А. Релевантные типы синтаксических структур и их
семантические корреляты. Автореф. дисс. на соискание уч.степени
доктора филол. наук. Москва, 2000.
Practical tasks
I. State the type of the following sentences expressing a particular
type of cross-event relations. Use L.Talmy’s classification:
a1. complex sentence with subordinating conjunction
a2. complex sentence with subordinating preposition
a3. complex sentence with subordinating conjunction and gerundive
a4. complex sentence with zero subordinating conjunction and gerundive
b. copy-cleft sentence with nominal pro-clause
c. copy-cleft sentence with adverbial pro-clause
d. copy-cleft sentence with conjunctional pro-clause
Type of semantic (cross-event) relation: “Reason”
1. They stayed home because/ since/ as they were feeling tired.
2. Feeling tired, they stayed home.
3. They were feeling tired, and they stayed home because of/ on account of/
due to that.
4. They were feeling tired, and so/ therefore/ hence they stayed home.
“Concession”
5. They went out although/ though/ even though they were feeling tired.
6. They went out, although feeling tired.
7. They were feeling tired, but they went out despite/ in spite of/ regardless of/
notwithstanding that.
8. They were feeling tired, but they went out anyway./ even so./ all the same./
nevertheless./
“Cause: nonagentive”
9. The napkin slid off the table from/ as a result of/ due to the wind’s blowing
on it.
The wind blew on the napkin, and it slid off the table from/ as a result of/ due
to that.
11. The wind blew on the napkin, and it slid off the table as a result.
“Cause: agentive”
12. The batter provided some excitement for the fans by driving in three runs.
13. The batter drove in three runs, and provided some excitement for the fans in that way/ thereby.
14. The batter drove in three runs, and thus provided some excitement for the
fans.
“Conditionality”
15. She will move back to Boston if/ in case/ in the event that she loses her job.
16. She will move back to Boston in case of/ in the event of her losing her job.
17. If experiencing seasickness, one should take an antinausea pill.
18. She could lose her job, and she would move back to Boston in that event/ in
that case.
19. She could lose her job, and she would move back to Boston then.
II. Analyze the following syntactic constructions considering their semantic
constraints as proposed by A. Goldberg and complete the tasks: