Теоретическая грамматика (английский язык). Практикум

Exercise 3. Translate into English:

1.Что он имел в виду, осталось невыясненным.

2.То, что мусоропровод полезное изобретение, – вне всякого сомнения.

3.Почему он так долго не пишет, беспокоит меня.

4.Поддержит он нас или нет, не так уж важно.

5.На сколько человек накрывать стол – вот, что сейчас обсуждается.

Exercise 4. Chang the following sentences with noun-phrases into complex sentences with conjunctives:

1.My suggestion is for him to go through the exercise again.

2.We are puzzled by his being unable to see the solution here.

3.I question their having accepted the plan.

4.We aim at John’s studying the profession of a builder.

5.The question is the time of starting.

Exercise 5. Translate into English:

1.Вопрос в том, как нам уговорить его на это.

2.Трудность, по-видимому, в том, поддержит ли он нас.

3.Дело в том, они не поняли задания.

4.Она выглядела так, как будто ещё не поправилась.

5.Разве это не то, о чём вы говорили в прошлый раз?

Exercise 6. Comment on the following sentences and translate them:

1.It was as though he and she were in alliance.

2.That he would be the loser admitted of no argument.

3.I am beginning to believe that it may be the best thing for you.

4.It seemed to me that nothing would move me now.

5.That is exactly what I mean.

Литература

Основная: 1–3. Дополнительная: 3, 4, 7. Интернет-ресурсы: 1–3.

61

ПРАКТИКУМ

ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА ( А Н Г Л И Й С К И Й Я З Ы К )

14. SEMANTIC SYNTAX. PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF SYNTAX Part 1

Цель: рассмотреть понятия semantics, seme, denotatum, proposition, names, predicates, actants, valency, рассмотреть теорию речевых актов, сформировать навыки идентификации предикативной нагрузки предложения, сформировать навыки анализа речевых актов в диалогах.

Знания и умения, приобретаемые студентами: студенты должны усвоить основные понятия semantics, seme, denotatum, proposition, names, predicates, actants, valency, уметь идентифицировать предикативную нагрузку предложения, анализировать речевые акты в диалогах.

Формируемые компетенции: ОПК-3.

Актуальность темы определяется тем, что в ее рамках осваиваются основные понятия семантики предложения, основные принципы грамматической категории числа, а также формируются навыки идентификации коммуникативных типов предложения.

Теоретическая часть Theoretical part

In the 50s of the 20th century there was a linguistic process which was called “semantic explosion”, i.e. linguists turn to the meaning of language units which had been investigated only from formal positions. It was the time when componential analysis appeared, introducing the notion “seme” (semantic feature, semantic factor, semantic component) and trying to describe the meaning of great number of words through the combination of limited number of semes (For example, the word bachelor has the set of 4 semantic features: 1) human being, 2) male, 3) adult, 4) unmarried).

Under proposition we understand the typicalized mental reflection of onthological situation, its mental correlate. The ability of a man to form proposition is based on the ability to categorize the apprehended and cognizable world, to divide it into separate classes, to generalize the infinite diversity of its fragments into finite and observable number of types. Coming across a great variety of different situations, a man understands that in the end all of them can be united on the basis of dominating feature into several groups. For example:

Someone performs the action upon somebody/something. (The boy hit the ball. The woman picked up a flower. The man threw his hat away).

62

Though all these sentences indicate different denotational situations, they’ll come up the same proposition.

From the point of view of semantic of the syntax the whole lexicon can be subdivided into two groups of words – names and predicates. Under names we understand not only nouns and pronouns also partially or wholly substantivized parts of speech the main feature of which is the ability to correlate with actants on a propositional level and with participants on the onthological level. Names denote things (in a wide sense) or essences involved into real or imagery situations.

Predicate is the part of lexicon which is used to denote relations (in wide sense) between things. We can relate propositions, conjunctions, adjectives and, of course, verbs. A special status of verbs is given to them by such feature as valency. Under valency we mean the ability of the verb to combine with several names. The number of names is not random, but is given by the semantics of the verb. For example, the verb to drop can have two names, the first of which usually denotes a doer of the action which is expressed by the verb and the second a certain object being an object of the action. Mary dropped a dog.

Вопросы, выносимые на обсуждение Points for discussion

1.What is meant under “semantic explosion” of the 20th century?

2.What do we mean under nominative function of the sentence?

3.Give the definition of proposition and determine its essential characteristics.

4.Analyze the functional meaning of proposition in the light of the theory of modeling.

5.What is meant under the name of propositional semantics?

6.Enumerate basic semantico-syntactical theory, give their evalu-

ation.

7.What theories sewed the basis for pragmalinguistics?

8.What is locution, illocutive power and perlocutive effect of the

text?

9.What is the essence of the theory of speech acts?

Задания Exercise

Exercise 1. Define the predicative load of the sentences. MODEL: You needn’t have asked him.

63

ПРАКТИКУМ

ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА ( А Н Г Л И Й С К И Й Я З Ы К )

The syntactic predicative load of this sentence is 2, as it renders two strong syntactic oppositional meanings: those of the modal subject – object relation (need) and negation. The morphological load is presented by the perfect (have asked).

1.It might have been a model of the Holy Grail.

2.How should I know?

3.Why didn’t you murder him?

4.You’re not going to die.

5.Don’t let me find you here when I come back!

6.She had began to cry.

Exercise 2. Built up the constructional paradigm based on the two primary sentences.

MODEL: He was annoyed. His sister was at home.

1)As his sister was at home, he was annoyed.

2)His sister was at home, so he was annoyed.

3)He was annoyed because his sister was at home.

4)He was annoyed at his sister’s being at home.

5)He was annoyed at his sister’s presence at home.

6)His sister’s presence at home annoyed him.

7)His annoyance was caused by his sister’s being at home, etc.

1.He stayed a bit longer. Mike enjoyed it.

2.I have a grandmother in New York. I must take care of her.

3.She saw them. They were entering the office.

Литература

Основная: 1–3. Дополнительная: 3, 4, 7. Интернет-ресурсы: 1–3.

64

15. SEMANTIC SYNTAX. PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF SYNTAX Part 2

Цель: рассмотреть понятия speech act, constatives, performatives, illocutive power, locution, perlocutive effect, рассмотреть теорию речевых актов, сформировать навыки идентификации предикативной нагрузки предложения, сформировать навыки анализа речевых актов в диалогах.

Знания и умения, приобретаемые студентами: студенты должны усвоить основные понятия семантики предложений, уметь идентифицировать предикативную нагрузку предложения, анализировать речевые акты в диалогах.

Формируемые компетенции: ОПК-3.

Актуальность темы определяется тем, что в ее рамках осваиваются понятия speech act, constatives, performatives, illocutive power, locution, perlocutive effect, основные принципы грамматической категории числа, а также формируются навыки идентификации коммуникативных типов предложения.

Теоретическая часть Theoretical part

As the human activity is comprehended and performed under certain conditions, encouraged by the purpose to solve some tasks (so there is an aim), is realized in accord with possible consequences then speech activity should be studied with respect to all features.

In the basis of the theory of speech acts developing in the middle of 20th century lies the idea about the possibility of dividing all utterances made in the form of a sentence into two main types – constatives and performatives.

The founder of this theory, English philosopher J. L. Austin noticed that along with utterances describing a certain fragment or events of non-lingual world or situation – in other words, declaring a certain state of affairs in the world, there exist other utterances which do not denote anything beyond language and are actions, acts, activities of purely lingual character. Such speech acts received the name of performatives and became the object of the theory of speech acts. The first feature of performative utterances is their ability to be language signs of themselves. Their second feature is in the presence in any performative utterance of performative verb in the first person singular in present tense, in active voice, indicative mood: I name the boy Jack.

If we change even one parameter of the utterance, it becomes a constative. You (they, he, she)name(s) the boy Jack. It is the sign of

65

ПРАКТИКУМ

ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА ( А Н Г Л И Й С К И Й Я З Ы К )

non-lingual situation naming a boy by someone. While performing a speech act in the form of I name the boy Jack a speaker performs the action of naming a boy Jack and he can’t do it anyhow as pronounce such sentence. That’s why performatives are not sign analogue of the fragment of the world: they are certain facts of reality by themselves.

In the theory of speech acts there are different typologies of performative utterance. The common feature of all sentences is that the name of every type of performative utterance is the same of performative verb which is the most prominent representative of this or that pragmatic intention of the utterance. There exist:

1)Speech acts – requestives: I request that you help me.

2)Speech acts – prohibitives: I prohibit your going there alone.

3)Speech acts – promises: I promise not to be late.

4)Speech acts – directives: I order you to obey.

The theory of speech acts has also enriched linguistics by such terms as locution, illocutive power, perlocutive effect of the utterance. Under locution we understand the act of speech production, the speech act itself, performing a speaker as the author and creator of the utterance. Under illocutive power the communicative intention of the speaker; it’s the illocutive power which forms the basis for classification of speech acts: threats, promises, orders, requests, prohibition, congratulations and so on. The perlocutive effect of the utterance is the behavioristic reaction of the listener on which the speaker accounts. The perlocutive effect can be expressed in action or in collection of actions.

Вопросы, выносимые на обсуждение Points for discussion

1.Explain the difference between direct and indirect speech acts.

2.Give examples of preformative verbs and utterances with them. What criteria should performative verbs have and why?

3.What does syntactic derivation imply?

4.What is considered to be the basic element of syntactic deriva-

tion?

5.What do the constructional relations of the kernel sentence consist in?

66

Задания Exercise

Exercise 1. Study the dialogues and analyze them from the point of view of theory of speech acts.

1

“Hello, Manson. How are you? I wanted to be the first to welcome you to Aberalaw”.

“Thanks, thanks, Doctor Lewellyn. It’s awfully good of you”.

2

1)John: Hello, Brenda.

2)Brenda: Hello, John. You look a bit annoyed.

3)John: Do I? Well, when I was coming out of my office someone shouted Shut the door – just like that – without saying please.

4)Brenda: That was rather rude. Though I expect you had left someone in a draught from the open door, John.

5)John: Perhaps I had, but anyway it rather annoys me when people forget to say please.

6)Brenda: Well, I think it would be a good idea to go on talking today about please and other ways of making polite requests.

7)John: All right. Well, let’s go on with please. It can come either before or after the request, can’t it?

8)Brenda: Yes, you can say Please shut the door, or Shut the door, please.

9)John: And Will you shut the door, please? is another way of putting it which may sound more polite than please. and then there’s a phrase which can sound even more polite: Would you shut the door, please?

10)Brenda: But of course, the politeness of these phrases depends on the tone of voice, the way, in which you say them, doesn’t it?

11)John: And then there’s Would you mind shutting the door? Notice that after would you mind we have the gerund shutting.

12)Brenda: And we can use the“kindly”phrases – you know, Kindly pass the salt, and Will you or Would you kindly pass the salt?, but they’re not used quite as often as the please, are they?

13)John: No. But how are readers to know which to choose out of all these ways of making polite requests?

14)Brenda: Well, it depends on the circumstances, doesn’t it? For instance, if I had already asked someone to do several things for me,

67

ПРАКТИКУМ

16. COLLOQUIAL SYNTAX

Part 1

Цель: рассмотреть понятие colloquial speech, рассмотреть основные типы конструкций устой речи, сформировать навыки идентификации типа подлежащего и сказуемого в предложении, сформировать навыки построения IC-модели предложения.

Знания и умения, приобретаемые студентами: студенты должны усвоить понятие colloquial speech и основные типы конструкций устой речи, уметь идентифицировать тип подлежащего и сказуемого в предложении, строить IC-модели предложения.

Формируемые компетенции: ОПК-3.

Актуальность темы определяется тем, что в ее рамках осваивается понятие colloquial speech и основные типы конструкций устой речи, а также формируются навыки идентификации типа подлежащего и сказуемого в предложении, навыки построения IC-модели предложения.

Теоретическая часть Theoretical part

The complex analysis which formed into separate lingual discipline, which got a name the theory of colloquial speech. The main tasks of the theory of colloquial speech:

1)the detailing of the theory of general linguistics with the help of received data as a result of oral speech investigation;

2)pointing out and describing characteristic features of oral speech;

3)catalogization and typologization of colloquial models with the following interlingual comparison.

The theory of oral speech realizes other applied aims, main of which are: lexicographical; didactical. The basic features of colloquial speech which makes oral speech different from other forms of language are:

1. The oral character of speech.

2. Dialogues as the basic form of speech.

3. Everyday speech.

4. Phonetic reduction.

5. Using the clichés in speech.

6. Situational character of speech.

7. Emotional character of speech (affectiveness).

8. The spontaneous character of speech.

9. Complementary character to non-conversational activity.

10. Not official/informal character of speech.

69

ПРАКТИКУМ

ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА ( А Н Г Л И Й С К И Й Я З Ы К )

Вопросы, выносимые на обсуждение Points for discussion

1.Why isn’t it enough to study language only in its written form?

2.At what period of linguistics did the development of the systematic research of oral forms of speech begin?

3.Why can’t phonetic, lexical and morphological criteria lie in the basis of colloquial speech analysis?

Задания Exercises

Exercise 1. Define the type of the subject and the predicate of the following sentences.

MODEL: It was a cold autumn weather.

The subject of this sentence «it» is impersonal factual. The predicate «was cold autumn weather» is compound nominal.

1.Car’s right outside. You might want to button your coat up, though, it’s freezing out there (Baldacci).

2.Good gracious, Mr. Holmes, you are surely not going to leave me in this abrupt fashion! (Doyle)

3.Tomorrow is the examination (Doyle).

4.She began to cry again, but he took no notice (Lawrence).

5.A great flash of anguish went over his body (Lawrence).

6.She walked away from the wall towards the fire, dizzy, white to the lips, mechanically wiping her small, bleeding mouth (Lawrence).

7.He sat motionless (Lawrence).

8.Then, gradually, her breath began to hiss, she shook, and was sobbing silently, in grief for herself. Without looking, he saw. It made his mad desire to destroy her come back (Lawrence).

9.«I should like to have a peep at each of them,» said Holmes. «Is it possible?» «No difficulty in the world,» Soames answered (Doyle).

10.The angle of approach would be quite different (Christie).

11.There seemed to be a certain cunning about this part of the road system of England (Christie).

12.This must be presumably the front door, though it didn’t look like a front door (Christie).

13.One hardly has to imagine anything to explain oneself (Christie).

14.She might be able to do spells (Christie).

15.It was rather dark inside (Christie).

70