C) Extensive Growth of Analytical Constructions

Historically analyticism has been developing unevenly in the language system. Modern English verbal paradigms display the highest degree of analyticism (both grammatical and lexical) as compared with the earlier periods. Grammatical analyticism suggests involve­ment of analytical constructions into word-changing paradigms. Suffice it to mention, that 30 (out of the total number 33) finite forms in Modern English are analytical. They express continousity, perfectivity, futurity, and partially synthetic indefinite [Plotkin 1989: 125]. Lexi­cal analyticism implies the emergence of analytical constructions in word-building paradigms. The characteristic features of analytical constructions as paradigmatic elements are as follows:

1. They usually consist of two or more elements regarded as words (primary lexemes).

Do you know?Have you translated the manuscript?

2. The syntactic relations between the elements are based on strong juxtaposition (placing lexemes side by side, or proximity).

Cf.: I have done it. *I done have it.

3. The functional load is distributed between the elements.

Sometimes one of the elements is lexically more impor­tant (specified), the other one is leading grammatically (more general in meaning). In some con­structions both the elements are equally loaded (in take out — both the elements are lexically equal). The elements of the construction merge to form a single seman­tic and functional unit. If the construction is coined to convey a new grammatical meaning, it becomes a pattern for analytical word-changing technique (is smiling, has done, etc.). If it is coined to convey a new lexical meaning, it becomes a pattern for lexical deriva­tion (thus, it enters word-building paradigms).

Be ill, fall ill, get going, take a rest, etc.

Russian learners of English experience great difficulties in using English analytical multi-word verbs whose structural types are often described (in terms of parts-of-speech [Plotkin 1989: 203-204]) as “V+adv” - take off; “V+N” - make a move; “V+ adj” - grow white; “V+V” - grow to know, get talking, and the like.

In Modern English one can find a phenomenon which may be called secondary analyticism. Here belong such analytical units as:

V + N or V + V

v + adv v(ing) + adv

have a take-off,

make a getaway go ferreting around,

and the like.

Such formations cause still more difficulties for Russian learners and teachers who often fail to explain the difference among: (1a-c); or (2a-c); or (3a-b); or (4a-b); or (5a-b), and the like.

Cf.:

(1)

(a) The plane took off smoothly.

(b) The plane had a smooth take-off.

(c) The pilot made a smooth take-off.

(2)

(a) Come back;

(b) make a comeback;

(c) have a comeback.

(3)

(a) Break through;

(b) make a breakthrough.

(4)

(a) Have a play-back;

(b) do a play-back

(5)

(a) Do a run-through;

(b) have a run-through.

It is largely due to the semantic distinctions among the verbs (do, have, take, make, come, etc.) that we can judge about the meanings of such analytical coinages as in (1-5) above.

Verbal analytical lexemes of several structural types (V + adv, V + N, V+ adj, V+V) seem to be recognized as language signs with their specific functions and semantics, because they possess general grammatical meanings (categorial part-of-speech meanings) and each of them names a particular mental entity, gestalt (image) which must have been identified by the speech community as a separate entity, equal to a particular cell of experience and, consequently, is worth being named. One can assume that having lexemic or “pseudo-lexemic” status, they are systematically organized into paradigms and can be described in the same (or almost the same) terms as one-word lexemes. Thus, abstracting from various nuances of particular discourse acts, we might speak about the prototypical (canonical) usages of the “V+adv” (go out) type to name actions with particular locative characteristics (sit about, go away). In “V + N” (give a look), the N action is categorized as a participant of another action (the V action) and is described in terms of material objects, via cognitive metaphor, so that this norminalized pseudo-object can be “given, taken, made, etc” (make a move, take part). The “V + adj” (go mad) type denotes various changes in a qualitative state of the subject, whereas “V + V” (get started) suggests changes in active states. Each verbal analytical lexeme (have a look, go away, etc.) is formed from the verbal substance (valencies of the verbs with broad meanings). The role of the valencies is to provide sort of matrixes for such lexical units.

In Middle English verbal paradigms (both grammatical and lexical) were enriched by a large number of new analytical elements. Analytisation is still very active in Modern English as it might be gathered from the examples above (especially secondary analyticism which is a New English innovation).

d) Predominance of Syntactic Methods of Linking Words in a Sentence

Formal concord and government, as purely synthetic methods of linking words, were common in Old English.

to engliscum gereorde

The noun 'gereorde' is in the Dative case, Neuter, singular.

The dependent word 'engliscum' has the inflection '-um' to ex­press the same grammatical meanings — Dative, singular, neuter. This is formal concord.

scipu utbrengan

The verb 'utbrengan' requires a noun in the Accusative case. This is formal government.

The decay of inflections has seriously diminished the extent of formal concord and government in English. Whereas Old English subjects agreed with the predicates in number and person, in Mo­dern English the form of the predicate often depends on the seman­tic content of the subject. This is notional concord. Cf.:

Haefde se cyning his fierd on tu tonumen, swa thaet hie waeron simle healfe aet ham, healfe ute, butan thaem monnum the burga healdan scolden

The king had divided his army into two, so that always half its men were at home, half on service, apart from the men who guarded the boroughs [quoted from Shaposhnikova 2003: 86]

The government have broken all their promises.

The government has broken all its promises [for further interpretations, see Quirk, et al. 163-169]

Under the new conditions the role of juxtaposition became especial­ly great. Both the side and force of juxtaposition are very important in Modern English as indicators of close connection between words.

e) The Share of the Grammatical Function of Word Order in English

In synthetic inflexional Old English, words could be arranged in a sentence in accordance with the communicative goal of the utterance. In analytical (especially isolating) languages, on the contrary, the share of the grammati­cal function of word order is much greater. This function consists of distinguishing parts of a sentence. To tell the noun-subject from the noun-object in Modern English, one should state which positions the nouns occupy in reference to the verb-predicate. The left-hand position is associated with the subject, the right-hand position — with the object. Cf.:

O.E. Hi hine to thaem ade beran wyllath

M.E. * They him to that fire (burying) place to take want.

They want to take him to the burying-place.

In Modern English word order is fixed in the group: Subject— Predicate—Object (SVO). But complete fixation of word order is incompatible with the need for flexibility. The utterance can be ef­fective only if it meets the demands of communication. English has found a compromise. Linguists often distinguish [Plotkin 1989; Morohovsky 1980] two zones in the English sen­tence: the central and peripheral ones. The members of the central zone, traditionally labeled SVO, have considerable restrictions in mobility, the verb cannot be removed because it sepa­rates the subject and the predicate. In the periphery zone word or­der is less strict. The end of the sentence is considered to be more important communicatively. It is here that the new and most weighty information tends to be placed. This is what Quirk calls 'the end-focus principle' [1982], a useful guiding principle in building up sentences. The question remains as to how we can remove words from the central zone and place them closer to the end in order to make them particularly weighty? The most popular methods according to W. Y. Plotkin [1989], are:

1. Passive constructions. Peter was informed by Nick.

2. Introductory 'it'.

It is useless going there.

3. Prepositions.

I gave the book to him. (Cf.: I gave him the book. The indi­rect object should immediately follow the verb predicate if there are two objects.)

References

Analytism 2006 – Аналитизм в языках различных типов; сорок лет спустя. К 100-летию со дня рождения В. Н. Ярцевой. Вып. 2. М.- Калуга: Изд-во «Эйдос», 2006. 284 с.

Baugh 1978 – Baugh A. C., Cable Th. A History of the English Language. L., 1978

Givon 1971 - Givon, Talmy. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist’s field trip// Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 7, 1971. P. 394-415.

Hopper, Traugott 2004 – Hoppe rP. J., Traugott E. C. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.

Johnson 1785 – Johnson S. A Dictionary of the English Language: In 2 Vol. 1785.

MacMahon 1996 – MaMahon April M. S. Understanding Language Change, Cambridge, 1996.

Morokhovsky 1980 - Мороховский А.Н. Слово и предложение в истории английского языка. Киев, 1980. 215 с.

Plotkin 1989 - Плоткин В.Я. Строй английского языка / В.Я. Плоткин. М.: Высшая школа, 1989. 240 с.

Plotkin 1980 - Плоткин В. Я. О путях эволюции аналитизма в германских языках // Взаимодействие языковых структур в системе: Сб.науч.тр. Вып.4. Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1980. С. 58-64.

Shaposhnikova 1999 – Шапошникова И. В. Системные диахронические изменения лексико-семантического кода английского языка в лингво-этническом аспекте. Иркутск, 1999.

Shaposhnikova 2003 - Шапошникова И.В. Этнолингвистический анализ текста в курсе истории английского языка: Учеб. пособие для студентов и аспирантов лингвистических университетов. Новосибирск: Изд-во НГПУ, 2003. 253 с.

Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, Svartvik 1982 - Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech G., Svartvik, Jan. A University Grammar of English. M.: Vyssaja Škola, 1982. 391 p.

Rastorguyeva 1983 - Rastorguyeva T. A. A History of English. M.: Vyssaja Škola, 1983. 347 p.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-02