Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






The sentence, general information

 

The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.

The actual existence of one-word sentences, however, does not contradict the general idea of the sentence as a special syntactic combination of words, the same as the notion of one-element set in mathematics does not contradict the general idea of the set as a combination of certain elements. Moreover, this fact cannot lead even to the inference that under some circumstances the sentence and the word may wholly coincide: a word-sentence as a unit of the text is radically different from a word-lexeme as a unit of lexicon, the differentiation being inherent in the respective places occupied by the sentence and the word in the hierarchy of language levels. While the word is a component element of the word-stock and as such is a nominative unit of language, the sentence, linguistically, is a predicative utterance-unit. It means that the sentence not only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also, first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation, or, more specifically, a situational event, and second, reflects the connection between the nominal denotation of the event on the one hand, and objective reality on the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc. Cf.: I am satisfied, the experiment has succeeded. I would have been satisfied if the experiment had succeeded. The experiment seems to have succeeded — why then am I not satisfied?

Thus, even one uninflected word making up a sentence is thereby turned into an utterance-unit expressing the said semantic complex through its concrete contextual and consituational connections. By way of example, compare the different connections of the word-sentence "night" in the following passages:

1) Night. Night and the boundless sea, under the eternal star-eyes shining with promise. Was it a dream of freedom coining true? 2) Night? Oh no. No night for me until 1 have worked through the case. 3) Night. It pays all the day's debts. No cause for worry now, I tell you.

Whereas the utterance "night" in the first of the given passages refers the event to the plane of reminiscences, the "night" of the second passage presents a question in argument connected with the situation wherein the interlocutors are immediately involved, while the latter passage features its "night" in the form of a proposition of reason in the flow of admonitions.

It follows from this that there is another difference between the sentence and the word. Namely, unlike the word, the sentence does not exist in the system of language as a ready-made unit; with the exception of a limited number of utterances of phraseological citation, it is created by the speaker in the course of communication. Stressing this fact, linguists point out that the sentence, as different from the word, is not a unit of language proper; it is a chunk of text built up as a result of speech-making process, out of different units of language, first of all words, which are immediate means for making up contextually bound sentences, i. e. complete units of speech.



It should be noted that this approach to the sentence, very consistently exposed in the works of the prominent Soviet scholar A. I. Smirnitsky, corresponds to the spirit of traditional grammar from the early epoch of its development. Traditional grammar has never regarded the sentence as part of the system of means of expression; it has always interpreted the sentence not as an implement for constructing speech, but as speech itself, i. e. a portion of coherent flow of words of one speaker containing a complete thought.

Being a unit of speech, the sentence is intonationally delimited. Intonation separates one sentence from another in the continual flow of uttered segments and, together with various segmental means of expression, participates in rendering essential communicative-predicative meanings (such as, for instance, the syntactic meaning of interrogation in distinction to the meaning of declaration). The role of intonation as a delimiting factor is especially important for sentences which have more than one predicative centre, in particular more than one finite verb. Cf.: 1) The class was over, the noisy children filled the corridors. 2) The class was over. The noisy children filled the corridors.

Special intonation contours, including pauses, represent the given speech sequence in the first case as one compound sentence, in the second case as two different sentences (though, certainly, connected both logically and syntactically).

On the other hand, as we have stated elsewhere, the system of language proper taken separately, and the immediate functioning of this system in the process of intercourse, i.e. speech proper, present an actual unity and should be looked upon as the two sides of one dialectically complicated substance — the human language in the broad sense of the term. Within the framework of this unity the sentence itself, as a unit of communication, also presents the two different sides, inseparably connected with each other. Namely, within each sentence as an immediate speech element of the communication process, definite standard syntactic-semantic features are revealed which make up a typical model, a generalised pattern repeated in an indefinite number of actual utterances.

 

TEXT 24.

 

 

TEXT 25

Polysemy

The notion of ‘structure’ comes to our mind when we come across the realisation of different meanings of one and the same word in a stretch of speech. As is well-known most lexical items in English have a range of different meanings (e.g. ‘design’ can be: 1) a drawing or an outline; 2) the art of making such drawings; 3) the general arrangement or planning of smth; 4) a plan or intention ). All these meanings, however different, have some semantic features in common to preserve and ensure the integrity of a word. The word’s meaning therefore can be viewed as a semantic structure where its new and old senses become interrelated to form a certain hierarchy. Some sections of what can be described as the semantic scope of a word can be better delimited than others.

Let us have a look at the verb to weigh. Within a range of its meanings a number of lexical-semantic variants can be singled out and presented as separate items. Thus, we have the following structure of variants as can be found in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: ‘weigh’ - 1) to measure how heavy smth. is by means of scales; 2) to show a certain weight (“"How much do you weigh?”" ); 3) to consider carefully the relative value or importance of smth. (“"weighing the pros and cons”"); 4) to lift an anchor out of the water; 5) to be considered important when smth/smb is being judged (“"Her past achievements weighed in her favour as a candidate”).

Although the number and order of variants are subject to change as we pass on from one dictionary to another or set up to offer our own version of the word’s overall meaning, this kind of description leaves us fairly certain as to the nature of the phenomenon itself, i.e. the word’s meaning being structured in a certain way. Within the same dictionary entry we discover the phrasal verb to weigh down having the meanings of 1) to make smb/smth bend by being heavy (“"The porter was weighed down by all the luggage”); and 2) to make smb. feel anxious or depressed (“" The responsibilities of the job are weighing him down”).

What is the relationship between the variants here? Both of them are related semantically to the verb ‘to weigh’ by transfer of meaning and association. But probably the most interesting observation in this respect is that the lexical-semantic variants contribute to each other meaningfulness in context and bring out the respective senses more vividly when used together in a stretch of speech:

"He rose from the table in bitter mood. Weighed down with doubts, struggling with his depression, he made his way to his study to telephone his wife. As he walked through the hall, he caught sight of his handsome, flushed features, his tall erect figure in the long gilt mirror and was disgusted. ‘Good God!’ he thought, ‘what a bloody, shameful waste!’

“"Rose Lorimer, struggling with weighed-down shopping baskets, made her immense way among the marble and mosaic of the Corner House, caught a passing view of herself in a mirror and was pleased” ". (Angus Wilson. Anglo-Saxon Attitudes )

The two passages following each other in the text of the novel, give the reader an idea of the emotional state of the characters. The whole description rests on contrasted emotional states, such as ‘being disgusted’ suggesting depression, and ‘being pleased’ as each of the characters catches sight of himself/herself in a mirror. The repetition of the words ‘struggling’, ‘made his/her way’, ‘caught sight/view of’ suggests that the two passages are meant as contrasting parts referring to parallel episodes within the entire whole of the story. This impression is reinforced by the parallel use of ‘weigh down’ 1) ‘depressed’ and ‘weigh down’ 2) ‘heavy’. Pragmatically the author is making use of the mutual ‘relatedness’ of the variants. The notion of ‘structure’ comes to the fore here because the two meanings of the word focus both on contrast and relatedness of senses.

An extra ‘ounce’ of meaning created by contrasting the senses of the word within a piece of discourse brings out the systemic properties of the lexicon on which the expression of a new content depends. The speakers of the language are well aware of this option enabling them to manipulate lexical units in such a way as to satisfy the demand for creativity.

It follows that we should also relate meaning to pragmatics - “"the way in which sentences are actually used and interpreted in speaker-hearer communication” [Leech, 1981]. Lexical structures should therefore be viewed as a feature of discourse since they cannot be entirely separated from the circumstances of language use. So far, as we have seen, one such circumstance has been identified as a necessary condition for the realisation of the communicative potential of semantic relationships, - i.e. the context of language use clearly indicating the creativity of the speaker.

 

 

TEXT 26.

Natalya Gvishiani’s contribution bridges the gap between the traditional studies of vocabulary in terms of lexical structures, based on the analysis of their semantic parameters (polysemy, antonymy, synonymy, etc.), and discourse analysis in terms of registers, functional styles, specialised functions, tenor, social varieties, etc. The focus of Gvishiani’s paper is on interaction and interplay between structural elements and features.

The paper graphically demonstrates that a multidimensional approach to the study of the lexicon does not rule out a view emphasising close links between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Among other things, the author convincingly proves the existence of organic links between the semantic and stylistic aspects of vocabulary. ““Style and register features,”” she points out, ““penetrate the semantic scope of words to form significant aspects of the word’s meaning. Even frequency of occurrence can be regarded as a semantically relevant parameter if looked upon from the point of view of the word’s actual realisation in speech.”” The author is right in attributing to stylistic synonyms an ability to affect the tenor of discourse.

Numerous examples, collected in the paper, prove beyond any doubt that lexical structures are not indifferent to the structures of discourse.

Far be it from me to call into question the basic propositions if Gvishiani’s paper that shows the way the structural and discourse aspects of the lexicon complement each other. My comments are merely suggestions of some further possibilities that seem to open up for a multidimensional analysis of the use of vocabulary in discourse and their interaction.

Thus, not only synonyms but any semantically related elements may provide for the so-called ““isotopic strings”” of discourse. Cf., for example, the following passage from W.Golding’s story, ““Ambassador Extraordinary””:

Men were swarming now over Amphitrite, tearing at her paddle, striking with any heavy gear they could find at the brass monster in the deck. The guard that Posthumus had put aboard her went down in a whirl of limbs. Smoke rose suddenly from her hold and uncoiled. Naked figures were hurling themselves from her bulwarks while a thin flame, hooded and flickering like a ghost, shot up amidships. The second warship saw the danger and backed water. Oars smashed against the quay but her way was checked. A third ship, emerging from the heat haze, crashed into the second with her ram. More oars smashed. More oars smashed, the both ships were locked and drifting helplessly down on Amphitrite. Posthumus, screaming curses, leapt into the imperial barge.

The first string is represented by verbs of destruction: tear (at), strike, smash, crash (into) and the second by a series of verbs and verb phrases of motion: swarm, go down in a whirl of limbs, shoot up, rise, hurl oneself, back water, leap (into).

That is the way the communicative effect of the text is achieved - a sense of dynamics of the episode, of rapidly unfolding events and, at the same time, of chaos and destruction. The intertwining of these two isotopic planes produces a two-dimensional picture of the battle scene.

Another example of close interaction of semantic and discourse structures is the strategy of discourse. As is known, the choice of linguistic resources, most appropriate to the conditions and goals of communicative events is one of the central problems of stylistics. On the level of discourse, the strategy of choice is usually associated with the optimal form of its organisation including the sequence of its elements. As regards the latter, N.Enkvist singles out three types of discourse strategy: 1) OIF (Old Information First); 2) CIF (Crucial Information First) and 3) CIO (Crucial Information Only).

CIF may be illustrated by the sequence of elements in a newspaper ““lead”” (the leading paragraph of a news item). The lead usually unfolds from the principal to secondary elements of an utterance. The latter begins, as a rule, with elements describing the Main Event, followed by Place and Time. The pattern of the message may be reduced to the following formula: M=EPT where M is the message, P is the place and T is time. Let us consider the following examples:

A group of newspapers, broadcasting and television organizations have successfully opposed an application for reporting restrictions to be imposed in two lengthy criminal trials arising out of the Guinness takeover of Distillers which is due to begin at Southwark Crown’s Court on Monday (The Daily Telegraph).

Russell Bishop, 23, an unemployed labourer of Lewes Road, Brighton, was charged last night with attacking a seven-year-old girl at Devil’s Dyke on the Sussex Downs on Sunday (ibid.).

South Africa’s Democratic Party is reappraising its role as the voice of the liberal opposition in white politics given the changes undertaken by President Frederik W. de Klerk in his speech in Parliament last week (The International Herald Tribune).

All the above leads are characterised by similar endings referring to the place and time of the event (““at Southwark Crown’s Court on Monday””, ““at Devil’s Dyke on the Sussex Downs on Sunday””, ““to Parliament last week””).

They do not necessarily refer, however, to the Main Event. Thus, in the first example they refer to an action, expressed by the predicate of an attributive clause (due to begin). In the second, to a gerund (attacking), part of a prepositional object, and in the third, to an attributive participial phrase (undertaken /…/).

The two above-mentioned applications of a combined (lexicosemantic and text-linguistic) approach to discourse analysis indicate some further possibilities of broadening the range of traditional lexicology along the lines suggested in N.Gvishiani’s paper, and demonstrate the advantages of a multidisciplinary approach to linguistic data.

 

 

TEXT 27.


Date: 2016-01-05; view: 3049


<== previous page | next page ==>
HOW DO OTHERS SEE AMERICANS? | Monotony as the enemy of effective speaking
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.008 sec.)