B) Strengthening of Form Words

There can be observed (historically) a gradual but stable growth of the significance of form words under the new conditions of con­stantly increasing analyticism. W. Y. Plotkin has noticed that this process implies strengthening individuality of the already existing classes, on the one hand. On the other hand — emergence of new groups of form words originating from the 'open classes'. Some English form words had to strengthen their individuality to cope with the constantly growing functional load. The process was ongoing in Middle and Early New English.

Considering the paradigms of Old English personal pronouns one might hypothesize that homonymy of the case forms was such that they could be easily confused. Consider the following forms for the 3d person:

Masculine Feminine Neuter Plural

Nominative he heo hit hie, hi, heo

Genitive his hire his hiera, hira, heora

Dative him hire him him

Accusative hine hie hit hie, hi, heo

In Middle English greater confusion might have been introduced if it had not been for the new forms borrowed from Scandinavian (the origin of she is unknown):

Nominative he he, she hit hi, they

Objective him hir hit hem, them

The Scandinavian 'they, them' and the form 'she' are capable of distinguishing number and gender respectively: so they help to avoid homonymy, which is important, as personal pronouns ex­press number and person in verbs analytically: they write; you write; we write; I write. They also serve as analytical markers of gender in he writes; she writes; it writes.

Concerning the other aspect of the problem — the emergence of new form words — we must note that some verbs came to be used in formative functions. Be, have, do, get, and some others are most common form words in Modern English. Historically such units have been growing in number. Each of these verbs brings in its own connotation when an analytical construction is coined:

Cf.: He was (got) tired.

Fall (be) ill.

Have (give, take) a look, etc.

Diachronically these verbs have been pursuing pursue a strategy in their sense development, which is especially typical of isolating languages. We shall call this ten­dency extension of meaning, i.e. “the widening of a word's significa­tion until it covers much more than the idea originally conveyed” [Baugh, Cable: 308]. Their meanings depend not so much on the meanings of neighbouring words as on the syntactic model (syntactic valency). Actually, their semantics are syn­tactically determined. Gradually, their syntactic potential becomes so great that they can combine with a very large number of words. The verb 'have', for example, can combine with any English participle in the perfect con­struction. Besides, it can enter other syntactic models with an infinite number of potential elements: have to go. Such verbs are used as basic units of analytical constructions.

The semantic structure (scope) of each English verb with a broad meaning has seen such historical changes that enable the verb to take various new groups of referents (as objects), at the same time the initial (prototypical, concrete) meaning of the verb is still preserved in its semantic scope, so that it becomes possible to have a book (an object proper, i.e. a physical object); to have an idea (an abstract entity, which is located in the inner space of human soul), to have a look, to have to go, to have written. Here the names of actions are also treated as “objects” since they are placed right after the verb in the position of the prototypical (manipulable) object; to have the car washed (the nominal subpredicate unit is the marker of the event located as “an object” in the human sphere). These new valencies appeared as a later development, they can be traced historically to the primary objective valency (with the archetypical, physical, object) whereby the syntagm was extended with adjectives, participles, and other forms, each representing a particular (qualitative, spatial, actional, or other) parameter of the object. Thus, the location of completed and potential actions (see the examples above) is achieved via loss of ancient patterns of government and agreement. As a result – strong juxtaposition of the infinitive or participle II as pseudo objects to the verb “have”. Consider the following examples taken from Chaucer and Old English texts·:

a) …or elles ye wol han me young and fair (Ch. WB 27); Haefdon swurd nacod, tha wit on sung reowon (Beow 539) «Имели мечи обнаженными, кинулись в зыби…»; b) Haefde him on innan ellen untweonde (VB. Andreas 1241) «имел он внутри себя смелость непоколебимую»; с) Se cyng haefde gegaderod sum hund scipa (Chr 911) «Король имел собранными около 100 кораблей»; …oth hie thaerymbutan haefdon monega byrig begietena (Oros 66.23) «…пока они в округе не имели много крепостей захваченными»; d) nu ic longe spell haebbe to secgenne (Oros 94.16) «теперь я длинный рассказ имею рассказывать»; I have, God woot, a large feeld to ere, and wayke been the oxen in my plough (Ch. Kn 28); e) King Alla, which that hadde his modor slayn … to Rome he comth (Ch. MC 854) [Shaposhnikova 1999: 212].

Similar processes can be observed in the diachronic development of the other English verbs with broad meanings, such as the verbs, which name “dynamic state” – keep, get, and some others. In New English the type of valency influences the status of the language unit, which is formed on its basis. Cf.: To have written – an analytical grammatical construction, to have a look - an analytical lexical construction, etc. This means that the analytical constructions have already been paradigmaticized as elements of verbal grammatical or lexical paradigms. It is very important to mention with W. Y. Plotkin that grammaticalization with far-reaching consequences is not at all typical of English [1980]. The verbs with broad meanings provide enough evidence for that. They do not display any special “loss of semantic substance.” Moreover, morphologically they are comparatively rich (against the background of historically shrinking morphological paradigms in English): be has 8 forms. Either suppletive or irregular forms with alternations are mostly preserved in the other verbs as well (have – had; go – went; come – came; get – got; take – took, etc.). No shrinking of syntagmatic weight, i.e. “condensation” as linguists call it [McMahon 1996: 167] takes place. On the contrary, diachronically the verbs display a stable tendency towards widening the syntagmatic scope, i.e. extending the number of constructions the verbs are parts of. The reason for such a preservation and extention of their semantic and syntagmatic weight lies in their functional load. The latter covers not only grammatical (morphological) paradigms, but also lexical phenomena (lexeme-formation). Paradigmaticization thus suggests here not only the integration of syntactic forms into morphological paradigms (like have done), but it also implies similar effects on lexical paradigms. Slightly altering Givon’s statement that “today’s morphology is yesterday’s syntax” [1971], we might as well say, that “today’s lexemes are yesterday’s syntax.” (see section c below). This must be a typical pathway of grammaticalization in the English verb. Such a development has nothing to do with semantic bleaching. On the contrary, it is a widening of the semantic scope accompanied by a corresponding widening of the syntagmatic scope, these widenings in their turn are linguistic reflections of a regular cognitive development, human conceptualization of the world.

It is important to note that the semantic and functional peculiarities of English verbs with broad meanings became evident already in the late Middle English period. In New English the verbs might be viewed as a separate lexicographic group which needed adequate methods of description. Samual Johnson was quite aware of this problem and he proposed some “basic” postulates for such a description. He seems to have singled out the verbs as a particular type almost unintentionally, spontaneously relying mostly on his intuition. This is how he describes the verbs in the 1755 edition of his dictionary. Their “signification is so loose and general, the use so vague and indeterminate, and the senses distorted so widely from the first idea that it is hard to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, to circumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settled meaning” Such words are according to Johnson, come, get, do, put, set, go, run, make, take, turn, and some others. “These words are hourly shifting their relations and can no more be ascertained in a dictionary, than a grove, in the agitation of a storm, can be accurately delineated, from its picture in the water” [quoted from the 1785 edition]. Johnsonian method is actually reduced to his postulating vague and amorphous semantics of the verbs.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-02