Курсовая с практикой на тему Types of subordinate clauses in Modern English

Содержание:

Introduction 3
Chapter 1. Theoretical essence of syntactic relations types 4
1.1 Theoretical essence of the concepts of «syntactic relations» and «nominal syntactic relations» 4
1.2 Syntactic essence of subordinate connection 7
Chapter 2. Syntactic essence of subordinate connection in sentences 14
2.1 Structure of a complex-compound sentence in English 14
2.2 Semantic-grammatical types of subordinate communication 20
2.3 Types of subordinate communication in complex sentences 23
Conclusion 26
Literature 27

Введение:

Over the past half century, syntax questions in English have attracted the special attention of many researchers. Among these issues that still require further scientific development, an important place is occupied by the question of the existing relationship between the components of word combinations, as a special unit of syntax. In this regard knowledge about the syntactic structure of phrases in various languages leads to the conclusion that the nominal syntactic links in the structure of phrases are not of the same type.
The relevance of this study is that the results obtained in it contribute to obtaining a more holistic view of subordinate clauses and can be used in further mastering the grammatical structure of the English language. Subordination as a grammar class considered in their works such linguists as M.Y. Bloch, I.P. Ivanova, V.V. Burlakova, G.G. Pocheptsov, V.V. Vinogradov, C. David, R. Huddleston, G.K. Pullum, B.E. Zernov, B.A. Ilish, T.M. Nikolaeva and others.
The subject of the study is subordination as a syntactic category. The object is subordinate connection in English sentence. The aim of the study is to consider subordinate clause in Modern English. In accordance with this aim the following tasks are set in the study:
− to consider theoretical essence of the concepts of «syntactic relations» and «nominal syntactic relations»;
− to investigate syntactic essence of subordinate connection;
− to consider the structure of a complex-compound sentence in English;
− to analyze semantic-grammatical types of subordinate communication;
− to investigate types of subordinate communication in complex sentences.
Within writing the study there will be used such theoretical methods as analogy, classification, analysis and generalization. The study consists from introduction, two chapters, conclusion and references.
The study consists from introduction, two chapters, conclusion and list of references.

Заключение:

Thus, there are two main types of syntactic connection: coordinative connection, or coordination and subordination connection. Both within coordination and subordination the words are dependent, but in some cases the dependence is equal, and in others — unequal: one word “dominates” grammatically over another.
Syntactic links get their «material» expression in the form of various techniques by which syntactic links are transmitted. These are: coordination, junction and control. The junction is the main type of grammatical subordination in the English language. Control in it is limited to constructions with prepositions, and coordination is generally absent. The criterion for distinguishing these two types of syntactic connection should be the concept of syntactic function. One or another group of syntactically related words should be referred to one of the above types — composing or subordinate — based on the sameness or dissimilarity of the syntactic function of the group as a whole and its immediate components. This sameness or dissimilarity of the syntactic function is established by the method of substitution, that is, by substituting one or several ICs instead of the entire group.
Subordination refers to this type of syntactic connection, in which the syntactic function of the whole group coincides with the syntactic function of only one of its national Assembly, but differs from the syntactic function of its other national assembly. That IC, the syntactic function of which coincides with the syntactic function of the group as a whole, is called the core of the group. That IC, the syntactic function of which differs from the syntactic function of the group as a whole, is called adjunct.
Thus, the aim set in the work is achieved and the tasks are fulfilled. Were considered

Фрагмент текста работы:

Chapter 1. Theoretical essence of syntactic relations types

1.1 Theoretical essence of the concepts of «syntactic relations» and «nominal syntactic relations»
The language referent of one-way interaction between situations is a syntactic subordinate relationship. The notion of syntactic connection, universal for any language, is a relationship between the components of a joint venture, defining its structure. The description of a subordinate relationship is impossible without an analysis of linguistic forms, forms of thought and extra linguistic relations. Depending on which of these factors is taken as a basis, all existing theoretical constructions in the field of syntax can be summarized into three groups: structural-grammatical, cognitive-semantic, and functional-semantic approaches.
The structural approach has a wide range of means of description, but does not provide the system-forming characteristic of a subordinate relationship, which is defined through the concept of valency as the ability of a word to enter into syntactic relations with other elements.
The cognitive-semantic approach is characterized by the understanding of subordination as a mental and linguistic interpretation of extra-linguistic relations, including in the aspect of its historical development. The concept of a subordinate relationship falls into the circle of cognitions — the general ideas of man about objective reality, obtained either empirically or through various mental actions, in this case the ideas of interaction expressed by linguistic means.
The functional-semantic approach offers a description of linguistic units in two directions: from means to functions and from functions to means, where the latter is a priority. The basic principle of this grammatical school is the isolation and description of a system of functional-semantic fields — two-sided (content-formal) unity formed by the morphological and syntactic means of the language, together with the lexical-grammatical and word-building elements interacting with them, which belong to the same semantic zone.
As it is known, syntactic relations are established between syntactic units and their components. The formal means of expressing syntactic relations is the syntactic connection — a formally expressed semantic connection between syntactic units. F. de Saussure in his “Course of General Linguistics” for the first time clearly formulated a statement about the existence in the language of two opposing types of communication between elements of the language: paradigmatic (de Saussure himself, according to the psychologistic tradition prevailing at that time, called them “associative”) and syntagmatic. The paradigmatic connection refers to the connection between classes of linguistic units, similar in structure or united by the presence of any common elements. Thus, paradigmatic connections exist between word forms belonging to the same categorical series. A syntagmatic connection is a connection between linguistic units in the structure of coherent speech, in a speech chain, i.e. a connection based on the length and adjacency of linguistic elements in the process of using a language. These can be: links between phonemes in the composition of morphemes, links between morphemes in the composition of words, links between words in the sentence structure, and finally, relationships between sentences in the structure of a complex syntactic whole.
In the light of this opposition of paradigmatic and syntagmatic connections between units of language, it is not difficult to define the concept of “syntactic connection” — this is a syntagmatic connection between words and groups of words. In other words, a syntactic connection is a connection between words and groups of words in a speech chain, in a system of coherent speech. But this understanding of syntactic links is quite broad. Therefore, for specification, a narrower notion of a direct syntactic connection is introduced. A direct syntactic connection is a syntactic connection between two such words or groups of words, which within dividing a given combination into immediate constituents or, abbreviated − IC, at a certain level of division, turn out to be directly components of the same larger component.
After the definition of the concept of «syntactic connection», it is necessary to disclose the concept of «nominal syntactic connection». Nominal syntactic relationship is an expression of the relationship between nominal elements in a syntactic unit, that is, it serves to express syntactic relations between nominal parts of speech, secondly, it creates the syntactic structure of sentences and phrases, thirdly, creates conditions for the implementation of lexical word meanings. The nominal parts of speech include: noun, adjective, pronoun, numeral, and adverb.
Both within coordination and subordination the words are dependent, but in some cases the dependence is equal (wind and snow), and in others — unequal: one word grammatically «dominates» the other (black dress). The elements that are connected with the help of a co-operative relationship are equal: mother and father, cat and dog, etc. The elements to be connected can be interchanged: mother and father. The meaning of the phrase does not change significantly. However, it is noted that the first place in combination usually has a greater «weight» than the second, i.e. degree of importance for the speaker named persons, objects, phenomena, etc. can be expressed by the order of the composition of the components. The elements associated with the writing are homogeneous. The grammatical equality of the elements being composed is reflected in the fact that one word cannot be interpreted as a sign of another and therefore does not allow a “grammatical” question to this other. A number of written members can be continued, it is grammatically open. New members, as it were, are «strung» on the same «composing thread.»
In this regard it is worth to consider coordinative connection in some aspects, too. Coordinate connection is used to complicate the sentence, to fill it with new semantic elements. Due to the fact that relations of the composing type do not appear very clearly and the groups connected with this kind of relationship can be identified as syntactic structures only against the background of an element that is not included in the considered phrase, it is convenient to call this type of relations as “accumulative relations” in order to show some vagueness of the types of syntactic groups. Accumulative relations are observed not only in groups consisting of two different types of additions, but are also characteristic of other constructions. This type of relationships is widespread in attribute groups consisting of definitions expressed by different morphological classes of words. For example: these important (decisions); some old (cards). In this example the attribute chain consists of elements that are not indifferent to each other, since their position relative to each other is strictly fixed and they cannot be interchanged, for example, as following: important these (decisions); old some (cards).

1.2 Syntactic essence of subordinate connection
In the case of a subordinate connection, the relations between the elements being joined are not equal. One element acts as the dominant, and the second subordinate to him, acts as dependent component: high mountain, mass of rock, etc. The subject word defines, specifies the meaning of the main word. The choice of the grammatical form of the subordinate word is usually dictated by the main word. The elements here cannot be swapped without changing the meaning: parents of friends and friends of parents.
The criterion for distinguishing these two types of syntactic connection should be the concept of syntactic function. One or another group of syntactically related words (phrases, sentences) should be assigned to one of the above types — composing or subordinate — based on the sameness or dissimilarity of the syntactic function of the whole group and its immediate components. This sameness or dissimilarity of the syntactic function is established by the method of substitution, that is, by substituting one or several IC instead of the entire group. The possibility or impossibility of such substitutions while maintaining the grammatical markedness (correctness) of the structure of the whole structure and a certain semantic invariant indicates that the syntactic function of the group as a whole and its immediate components are identical or different, and thus gives grounds for classifying this group as either a different type of syntactic connection.
The phrase belongs to the same grammatical-semantic sphere as the word, it, like the word, has a nominative character, belongs to the nominative means of the language. In the phrases of the English language, each component is in its “frozen” form, where only a noun can change in accordance with the number of people or objects. For example, in beautiful girl or beautiful girls, we see that with the addition of the morpheme -s, only the number of girls about which we say they are beautiful has changed, the adjective beautiful itself has remained unchanged, whereas in Russian the difference between phrases in the morphological sense was be striking. The doctrine of the phrase is closely related to the doctrine of parts of speech. Phrases are classified according to the main word as nominal, verb, etc., and depending on their belonging to one or another category, they perform different functions as part of a sentence and are part of complex phrases in different ways.
Subordination is a type of syntactic connection in which the syntactic function of the group as a whole coincides with the syntactic function of only one of its IC, but differs from the syntactic function of its other IC. That IC, the syntactic function of which coincides with the syntactic function of the group as a whole, is called the core of the group (head). That IC, the syntactic function of which differs from the syntactic function of the whole group, is called adjunct. The establishment of the relationship of subordination is carried out by checking for substitution. When replacing the entire subordinate group as a whole with its core, the grammatical distinction of the whole structure is preserved, while its semantic content is unchanged, within certain limits (“semantic invariant”). If the entire subordinate group as a whole is replaced by its adjunct, either the grammatically unmarked (incorrect) construction is obtained, or, if the grammatically marked construction is obtained, its structure changes from the original, due to which the semantic invariance of the sentence is violated.
Thus, a subordinate relationship exists between tall and boy in the phrase a tall boy, since the syntactic function of this phrase is always identical to the syntactic function of a boy, but always different from the syntactic function of tall. This can be seen on the basis of the analysis of the following structures:
▪ A tall boy came in.
Here, the entire phrase is used in the syntactic function of the subject, and this syntactic function coincides with the function of a boy, while tall is used in another syntactic function (of a subordinate member). This is established with the help of a check on the substitution:
▪A tall boy came in. — A boy came in.
But tall came substitution is impossible. Consequently, a boy is the core, and tall is an adjunct of this group, and the whole group (word combination) is subordinate.
L.S. Barkhudarov identifies the following types of phrases:
a) subordinate phrases, the IC of which are united by a subordinate connection. Examples: cold water; reading a book; ready to go; politically active; etc.
b) composing phrases (co-ordinate phrases), the IC of which are combined by the composing link. Examples: pens and pencils; strict but just; neither here nor there; etc.
Subordinate phrases have a number of features that distinguish them from other types of phrases — writing. First, subordinate phrases, unlike companion phrases, are characterized by syntactic inequality, unevenness of their constituent parts: in the subordinate phrase, the dominant, main or subordinate member, called the core (head), and the dependent, subordinate, called adjunct. Secondly, in contrast to the phrases of the composing, the subordinate phrases are always two-sided, that is, when the division by the National Assembly at each separate level of division in the subordinate phrase, there are always two and only two directly components. However large the number of words that make up a subordinate phrase would be, their division will always be binary.
It should also be noted that due to the presence of a certain number of general conjunctions, it is not always possible to identify a coordinate connection in a sentence. Thus, besides the fact that sentences with a coordinate connection include traditionally unions and, but and the others, there are also some subordinate ones: though, if, when, than the others, which may include in a sentence both a member of sentence in a simple sentence and a predicative unit in a complex sentence. In the given examples, two types of sentences (simple sentence with homogeneous predicates and coordinate sentence) are far enough apart from each other to uniquely solve the problem of their nature.
It is more difficult to solve it in connection with such constructions as Though dead tired, he struggled on. As the previous history of grammar demonstrated, the analysis by the method of “thinking” about the absent, “transfer” of the construct to another with a more explicit expression of grammatical content was an easy but dangerous way to interpret syntactic phenomena. If one does not pay attention to the form, it leads to ignoring of the real differences, to a simplification in the grammatical description of the complex linguistic reality.
Currently, there is a growing interest in the study of the semantic-syntactic aspect of linguistic conjunctions. Studies of the functional and cognitive-communicative aspects of service words, which act as indicators of the syntactic connection, in particular, the functioning of the writing conjunctions in different structural-semantic types of syntactic units, are of particular relevance nowadays. By participating in the syntactic organization of the sentences, the conjunction brings into its semantic representation new components of meaning, creates a modal plan of the utterance as a whole.
Notwithstanding it should be noted that conjunction for is used for communication not only of parts of a complex coordinated sentence, but also for parts of a complex subordination. This conjunction occupies an intermediate position between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. In the linguistic literature, it is noted that for differs from both typical coordinating and typical subordinate conjunctions. The lack of characteristics characteristic of typical conjunctions makes it difficult to determine its grammatical status. So, unlike other writing conjunctions, for does not occur during repeated writing and can only bind predicative conjunctions. At the same time, unlike subordinate conjunctions, this conjunction does not allow the permutation of predicative units in a complex sentence. In addition, predicative units entered by for conjunction cannot act as homogeneous subordinate clauses.
Similar to other writing associations, for can be used in the initial position. Normative English grammars disallow the use of writing conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence. Nevertheless, corpus studies have noted a high frequency of initial composer conjunctions. In addition, if they are used at the beginning of a sentence, the writing conjunctions act not simply as an indicator of a sociable connection (as is the case with non-initial alliances), but also as discourse markers, that is, units that regulate the structure of discourse and that connect various discourse plans. In general, a coordination connection at the discursive (textual) level is of a fundamentally different character as compared to a coordination connection realized within a complex sentence.
It is worth to consider an example of an initial for:
▪ Sandweg church was different from other churches on the island in that its frescos did not bear the imprint of the celebrated Elmelunde master but of some unknown artist who, it seemed, had neither painted nor supervised the painting of any other works of public art Who had he been? Why had he chosen this subject? For although, ostensibly, the subject of the fresco was biblical, the artist had chosen to illustrate the earlier massacre with scenes from a later, fourteenth-century island tragedy.
It is possible to notice here that the conjunction for in this case emphasize two distant textual units, separated by a sequence of rhetorical questions. This method of cohesion, when a connection is established between non-contact textual fragments, is characteristic of initial coordinated conjunctions. Thus, in this case, the conjunction for acts as a means of coordination connection.
For comparison it is worth to consider an example in which conjunction for acts as a means of subordinate connection:
▪ Perhaps it might have been endurable if she had been permitted to use her charms on the convalescent men, for many of them were attractive and well born, but this she could not do in her widowed state.
In this case, connected by an adversary connection predicative units are separated by another predicative unit, introduced by for. Such a structure is possible only if the conjunction for is interpreted exclusively as a means of subordinate connection.
Thus, conjunctions and their analogues explicitly implement a subordinate relationship and act as transfers of language form indicating the direction of this relationship. The question of the status of conjunctions, conjunctive words and conjunction complexes was widely covered by scientists who did not develop a unified point of view. A controversial question for linguistics seems to be expedient to try to solve by means of intensional direction in logic, where some linguists rely on the theoretical developments of G. Frege. This relationship connects two objects — the name and its value – that is, the object being called. In addition to the value, the name has a meaning. Meaning expresses the way in which a name is attributed to an object; it is a method of communication between the object and the name. If you follow a purely nominalistic tradition, then the category of meaning is not needed; it is enough to fix the relationship between the name and the single object, the object of naming. Frege introduces meaning as an abstract object, since meaning is that which is understood, assimilated by those who use this name. A value and a name are in a naming relation if and only if a name is assigned a pre-fixed meaning as a property, and the name itself is implemented as a relation on a value, i.e. on a thing. In this regard the name corresponds to the form of the conjunction or its analogue and the meaning to the conjunctive function of marking the subordinate connection as an explication of relations between the predicative structures that are learned by native speakers. The instability of the connected forms and the diversity of values make a strong supposition that the connected function (meaning) is the defining characteristic of the status of the connected means.
It should be noted that a subordinate conjunction is a part of speech that explicates the relationship between two simple sentences in a complex with its own semantics and requires grammatical changes in the input component. A conjunctive word is another part of speech (a pronoun, a question word, or an adverb) that acts as a conjunction, accepting its functions and formal indicators, and has a meaning that can explicate relationships within a complex sentence. The conjunctive complex is a union of the conjunctions with other parts of speech into an indivisible unit, which has a different meaning compared to the original conjunction, performs the same functions and induces the same grammatical changes.
Thus, it was founded that the syntactic connection is a formally expressed semantic connection between syntactic units, i.e. it is nothing more than a connection between words and groups of words in a speech chain, in a structure of coherent speech. Nominal syntactic relationship is the expression of the relationship of nominal (nominal) elements in a syntactic unit, that is, it serves to express syntactic relations between nominal (nominal) parts of speech, secondly, it creates the syntactic structure of a sentence and phrase, thirdly, it creates conditions for the implementation of lexical word meanings. The nominal parts of speech include: noun, adjective, pronoun, numeral and adverb.