Morphological EM and SD

The adjective and its stylistic functions

The adverb and its stylistic functions

The verb and its stylistic properties

The pronoun and its stylistic functions

The noun and its stylistic potential

Morphological EM and SD

Network grammar

Realistic grammar

Functional grammar

Generalized phrase structure grammar

Montague Grammar

Relational grammar

Case grammar

Some theoretical consequences of generative theory

Since the 1960s, several fresh theoretical approaches to grammatical analysis have emerged, most of which can be seen as a development of Chomsky’s proposals – or as a reaction against them.

The American linguist, Charles Fillmore (1929 -), devised a theory which focused on the semantic roles (or “cases”) played by elements of the sentence structure.

This approach views grammatical relations (e.g. “subject”, “object”) as central, rather than the formal categories (e.g. “noun phrase”, “verb phrase”) or earlier generative theory.

This approach derives from the work of the American logician Richard Montague (1930-1970), and is based on the study of logical languages. A close correspondence is set up between the categories of syntax and semantics.

This theory does not recognize the role of transformations in a generative grammar. Instead, it focuses on developing the phrase structure dimension to grammatical analysis.

Several approaches look for alternatives to an abstract, formal approach to grammar. this particular theory adopts a pragmatic view of language as social interaction, and sets up “functional” units of a pragmatic and syntactic kind within sentence structure.

Grammatical analysis should be “psychologically real” according to this approach. Formal patterns should be related to the psychological factors that underlie linguistic behaviour, such as comprehension and memory.

This kind of grammar has developed out a research into artificial intelligence, aiming to simulate the way in which people understand the sentences of a language.

Morphology deals with the parts of speech and their inflection, that is with the forms of number and case of nouns and pronouns, the forms of degrees of compari­son of adjectives, the forms of tense, mood, etc. of verbs. These forms may be used in a specific way for the sake of expressiveness and emotiveness.

Yu. Screbnev considers that stylistic morphology (both paradigmatic and syntagmatic) deals with the stylistic potentials of Grammar forms, which Leech would describe as deviant. Out of several varieties of morphological categorial forms the author chooses a less predictableor unpredictable one, which renders to this form some stylistic connotation. The peculiar use of a number of grammatical categories for stylistic purposes may serve as an ample example of this type of EM.

Synagmatically, stylistic morphology, in Yu. Screbnev’s view, deals with the importance of grammar forms used in a paragraph or text that help in creating a certain stylistic effect.

Being placed in an unusual syntagmatic environment that changes their canonized grammatical characteristics and combinability, different parts of speech acquire stylis­tic significance.

Thus, morphological stylistics deals with the stylistic use of different categories of parts of speech, which constitute morphological expressive means and stylistic devices.

A. Morokhovsky points out that:

Morphological EM are scares in English due to the fact that there are few language synonyms among English morphemes (the smallest meaningful unit which can be singled out in a word) and only some of them form stylistic oppositions: he lives = he does live. The scarcity of morphological EM which is predetermined by the analytical character of the English language is compensated by a great variety of SD

Morphological SD, in A. Morokhovsky’s interpretation, as a deliberate shift in the fixed distribution of morphemes can be created by means of: a/ the violation of the usual combinability of morphemes within a word (sands, waters; to be seeing, to be knowing); 2/ the violation of the contextual distribution of morpheme, which is called form transposition.

Thus, the central notion of morphological Stylistics is the notion of transposition. Transposition is a divergence between the traditional us­age of a neutral word and its situational (stylistic) usage. As a а result of these transpositions or play of morphemes new, occasional, contextually bound words emerge:

toing and froing (Ch.Dickens); unbeautiful (I.Shaw); К. Чуковский – дребеденьги

Біля церков ополудні вишиковуються валки автомашин, що означає, що прихожани, яких впору називати приїжджанами, явилися відкуппитися від несуворого та дуже практичного американського бога (С.Кондращев)

Стругацкие – НИИКАВО (научно-исследовательский институт кабалистики и ворожбы); НИИЧАВО (научно-исследовательский институт чародейства и волшебства)

F. Burns – Dreamerica

Л. Васил”єва – “Не можу, не вмію перекладати датські вірші, написані до дат, на випадок, за зобов”язанням.”

“ Militant feminists grumble that history is exactly what it says, - His-story, and not Her-story at all (J. Robinson)

Words of all parts of speech have a great stylistic potential.

2. The noun and its stylistic potential

Words of every part of speech are united by their semantic and gram­matical properties. General lexico-grammatical meaning of nouns is substantivity, i. e. the ability to denote objects or abstract notions. Due to the diverse nature of substantivity, nouns are divided into proper, common, concrete, ab­stract, material and collective. Besides general lexico-grammatical meaning, nouns possess grammati­cal meanings of the category of number and the category of case. These meanings may also be used for stylistic objectives.

The stylistic power of a noun is closely linked to the grammatical categories this part of speech possesses. First of all these are the categories of number, person and case.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11