Литературные теории в поэтическом мире джона китса
MORPHOLOGY AS THE SUBJECT OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH
жүктеу/скачать 1,4 Mb.
|
СТАТЬИ ВСЕ
| MORPHOLOGY AS THE SUBJECT OF LINGUISTIC RESEARCH
Канатова С.Ж. -Шетел тілі: екі шетел тілі магистранты ОАИУ Түйін. Мақалада сөйлеу бөлігінің морфологиясы және олардың грамматикалық категориялары қарастырылады. Оның зерттеу объектісі сөздердің грамматикалық формаларын өзгерту жолдары. Резюме. В статье рассматриваются морфология части речи и их грамматические категории. Его объектом изучения являются способы изменения грамматических форм слов. Language as a form of cognition and communication reflects the objective space and time relations not directly but indirectly - by man's consciousness and the complicated system of its inner linguistic means. This reflection presupposes deeper penetration into the objective relations in connection with which, the language and consciousness development is being ever adopted to objective time and space more precisely. Time and space can't but find their reflection in language because any action takes place in space and time. The latter as the attributes of matter are unlimited in respect to matter. But characterizing the objects concretely reflected in their language ties, time and space are the limiters of these objects because each object is measurable in space and time coordinates. Time is an attribute of matter being an integral and indecomposable property of objects. It characterizes the transmutation of objects and irreversibility if their development. Consequently time is a definite standard of the objects development which reflects their qualitative transmutation. This reflection however is expressed by the grammatical tense which indicates the relation of the action towards the temporal zones of its processuality. Two factors are of the most importance here: 1) the character of connecting the grammatical categories of tense and aspect with the objective and subjective time; 2) specificity of these grammatical categories from the viewpoint of the inner mechanism of their functioning. Let's begin with the first. Time, as is known, represents one of those categories which define all the natural and cognitional processes. The problem of man's consciousness reflecting reality (refracted in the factor of time) is one of the most complicated. Temporal relations between action and object may be either limited or relatively unlimited. Not occasionally that the interaction of the category of aspect with that of tense makes them the grammatical categories. However in our country and abroad many scientists consider them separately, defining the category of tense as the relation of action to the moment of speech (MS). In linguistic investigation the subjective interpretation of MS is connected with different theories referring the category of tense either to psychological or logical spheres. Naturally the question arises what should be understood by MS from the point of view of grammatical abstraction. MS includes speaking at a given moment of objective time, i. e. it includes the speaker appearing as a certain point on the time axis. Being immediately connected with the speaker, MS however as the means of dividing objective time into present, past and future is too vague because (even interpreted on the materialistic grounds) it reflects the objective time subjectively. That's why MS can't reveal those language regularities which create tense as the grammatical category. Objective time is divided not by MS but by the state of things and their development where the speaker together with his or her MS is subjected to certain changes as well. Objective time existing irrespective of us and outside of our consciousness is perceived psychologically being grammatically generalized. Due to its specifically generalizing character the grammatical category of time termed as tense does not reflect the psychological division of the objective time directly but in its functioning grammatical category depends on it Objective time being in each moment an unreversed notion has its processuality the beginning of which (as far remote from the speaker's comprehension) forms the notion of underproces-sua1ity while its unrealized direction to future forms the notion of overprocessuality. Psychologically processuality creates two temporal zones: the zone of time and that of anti time. The zone of time appears when something coincides with the objective time being simultaneous to it. The zone of antitime appears when something precedes immediately the objective time duration. Underprocessuality as a process of real but highly remote time duration creates the zone of plus perfect or playtime while overprocessuality as the process of unreal time duration creates the zone of pseudo-time. Thus processuality is subdivided into its real and unreal representation. Psychologically the real representation includes the zones of playtime, antitime and time proper. The unreal time representation embraces only one zone of pseudo-time. The reflection of real processuality in everlasting time leads to its materialization that causes the appearance of the space being (b). Thus the space being is the result of the temporal refraction of real processuality. Pseudo-time doesn't create any space being because there is no real processuality to be materialized. Refracting unreal processuality pseudo-time creates the super spatial being (analyzed below). That's why the division of grammatical tenses into present (Pr), past (Ps) and future (F) is not obligatorily traced in all languages. Even Old English was not marked by such a division being characterized by two grammatical tenses (past and present) only. The thing is that the common space being is equally represented just by these two tenses reflecting the zones of time and antitime. In connection with this the dichotomy division of processuality into present and past tenses is quite explicable and the grammatical means of representing futurity may originate only afterwards on their foundation. Even now there are many languages (like Estonian) which do not distinguish grammatically the present actions from the future ones. Instead of such a division into present, past and future there exists another division representing the five and exclamatory is incompatible with the insufficient information. The interrogative structure, as was stated, is not an independent type of sentence for it does not express any completion of thought. It organizes the speakers intellectual activity aiming it at the positive or negative evaluation of the being (which is naturally given in definite temporal coordinates). The interrogative construction being a syntactic structure is not a sentence but its initial component; in combination with the sentence it forms an utterance as a speech complex. In this respect the paradigmatic aspect of the first and the second levels differs essentially. The above-said permits to conclude that the paradigmatic aspect is also of three-stage generalization. Its bottom belongs to morphemes which are the distinguishing feature of the second level exclusively. The next stage is occupied by the grammatical categories represented in the oppositional quality of their meanings. The third stage is formed by the morphological paradigm which represents a definite constant meaning characterizing each grammatical class or part of speech. The most common theoretical approaches to human translation paying special attention to their limitations and ability to explain the translation process. Roughly, the human translation theories may be divided into three main' groups which quite conventionally may be called transformational approach, denotative approach, and communicational approach. The transformational theories consist, of many varieties which may have different names but they all have one common feature: the process of translation is regarded as transformation. According to the transformational approach translation is viewed as the transformation of objects and structures of the source language into those of the target. Within the group of theories which we include in the transformational approach a dividing line is sometimes drawn between transformations and equivalencies. The stylistic coloring of the absolute construction should also be noted. It is quite different in this respect from the constructions with the objective predicative, which may occur in any sort of style. The absolute construction is, as we have seen, basically a feature of literary style and unfit for colloquial speech. Only a few more or lees settled formulas such as weather permitting may be found in ordinary conversation. Otherwise colloquial speech practically always has subordinate clauses where literary style may have absolute constructions. A participle is by no means a necessary component of an absolute construction. The construction can also consist of a noun and some other word or phrase, whose predicative relation to the noun is made clear by the context. Here are a few examples: Bone stood in a patch of sunlight on the gray carpet, his hands behind him, his face in shadow. This example is characteristic in so far as the subject of the sentence is noun denoting a human being, the predicate group tells of his position in space, and the subjects of the two absolute constructions are nouns denoting parts of his body (his hands and his face), while the predicative parts of the constructions describe. The peculiarity of this construction is that it has a subject of its own expressed by a noun in the common case (or more rarely by the pronouns it or this). The second component is expressed by participle I or II. This construction expresses adverbial relations and is synonymous to an adverbial clause. It is much more often used in literary and scientific style, than in spoken English. Reference 1.Krutikov Y.A., Kuzmina I.S., Rabinovich Kh. V. Exercises in Modern English Grammar. M., Foreign Languages Publishing House, 2015. – 232 p. 2.Natanson E.A. Practical English Grammar by Correspondence. M., Higher School Publishing House 2013. – 158 p. 3.Palmer H. The Verb. London, 2014. – 242 p. 4.Roberts P. English Sentences. New York, 2013. – 154 p. УДК 81-139 жүктеу/скачать 1,4 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|