Topics for Discussion
1.The principle of Figure-Ground Segregation in structural and semantic
organization of the sentence.
2. The problem of sentence classification within the cognitive approach.
3. The problem of the semantic study of syntactic constructions. Concepts
represented by syntactic constructions.
Topics for Reports
1. Types of concepts represented by the simple sentence (see: Фурс Л.А.
Когнитивные аспекты синтаксиса английского простого
предложения. – Тамбов, 2005, С. 78-86).
The notions “event integration” and “macro-event”. Linguistic patterns for the
Representation of macro–events (see: Further readings on syntax in this book from
L.Talmy “Toward a cognitive semantics”.
Literature
1. Lectures on syntax (this book).
2. Фурс Л.А. Когнитивные аспекты синтаксиса английского простого
предложения. – Тамбов, 2005.
3. Goldberg Adele E. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument
structure. – Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1995.
4. Events as Grammatical Objects. Ed. by C.Tenny and J.Pustejovsky, CSLI
Publications, 2000.
5. Fauconnier G., Turner M. Blending as a central process of grammar//Goldberg
A.(ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. – Stanford, Cal.:
CSLI Publications, 1996.- P.113-131.
6. Kay P., Fillmore C. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:
“The what’s X doing Y? construction”, Language 75: pp. 1-33, 1999.
7. Mandelblit N. The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: From
syntax to morphology // Cognitive Linguistics 2000, 3-4, P. 197-206.
8. Talmy L. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition //Topics in Cognitive
Linguistics. – Amsterdam, 1988. – P.165-207.
9. Talmy L. The windowing of Attention in Language // Grammatical
Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. – Oxford, 1996. – P. 235-287.
10. Talmy L. Toward a cognitive semantics. – Massachusetts:Institute of
Technology, 2000.
11. Ungerer F., Schmid H.-J. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. –
L., N.Y., 1996.
12. Zucchi A. The language of Propositions and Events. Dordrecht, 1993.
13. Болдырев Н.Н., Фурс Л.А. Репрезентация языковых и неязыковых
знаний синтаксическими средствами// Филологические науки, 2004, №
3, стр. 67-74.
14. Скобликова Е.С. Концептосфера человека и модели предложения//
Филологические науки, 2001, № 4, стр.45-54.
15. Сулейманова О.А. Релевантные типы синтаксических структур и их
семантические корреляты. Автореф. дисс. на соискание уч.степени
доктора филол. наук. Москва, 2000.
Practical tasks
I. State the type of the following sentences expressing a particular
type of cross-event relations. Use L.Talmy’s classification:
a1. complex sentence with subordinating conjunction
a2. complex sentence with subordinating preposition
a3. complex sentence with subordinating conjunction and gerundive
a4. complex sentence with zero subordinating conjunction and gerundive
b. copy-cleft sentence with nominal pro-clause
c. copy-cleft sentence with adverbial pro-clause
d. copy-cleft sentence with conjunctional pro-clause
Type of semantic (cross-event) relation: “Reason”
1. They stayed home because/ since/ as they were feeling tired.
2. Feeling tired, they stayed home.
3. They were feeling tired, and they stayed home because of/ on account of/
due to that.
4. They were feeling tired, and so/ therefore/ hence they stayed home.
“Concession”
5. They went out although/ though/ even though they were feeling tired.
6. They went out, although feeling tired.
7. They were feeling tired, but they went out despite/ in spite of/ regardless of/
notwithstanding that.
8. They were feeling tired, but they went out anyway./ even so./ all the same./
nevertheless./
“Cause: nonagentive”
9. The napkin slid off the table from/ as a result of/ due to the wind’s blowing
onit.
10. The wind blew on the napkin, and it slid off the table from/ as a result of/ due
to that.
11. The wind blew on the napkin, and it slid off the table as a result.
“Cause: agentive”
12. The batter provided some excitement for the fans by driving in three runs.
13. The batter drove in three runs, and provided some excitement for the fans in that way / there by.
14. The batter drove in three runs, and thus provided some excitement for the
fans.
“Conditionality”
15. She will move back to Boston if/ in case/ in the event that she loses her job.
16. She will move back to Boston in case of/ in the event of her losing her job.
17. If experiencing seasickness, one should take an antinausea pill.
18. She could lose her job, and she would move back to Boston in that event / in
that case.
19. She could lose her job, and she would move back to Boston then.
II. Analyze the following syntactic constructions considering their semantic
constraints as proposed by A. Goldberg and complete the tasks:
The ditransitive construction
1. Explain why sentence (b) sounds less polite than sentence (a):
a. She fed the guests lasagna.
b. She fed lasagna to the guests.
The caused-motion construction
2.Explain why sentences (a) and (b) sound correct while sentence (c) does not:
a. Sam walked him into the car.
b. The rain swept the ring into the gutter.
*c. The hammer broke the vase into pieces.
3. What of the following sentences are semantically acceptable? Explain why?
a. Sam coaxed him into the house.
b. Sam convinced him into the house.
c. Sam frightened him into the house.
d. Sam persuaded him into the house.
e. Sam lured him into the house.
f. Sam instructed him into the house.
g. Sam encouraged him into the house.
4. What semantic constraint on the caused-motion construction licenses the following sentences?
a. Jack clumped his potatoes into the middle of his plate.
b. Jack grated the cheese onto a serving plate.
The resultative construction
5. Explain why sentences (a) and (b)sound correct while sentence (c) does not:
a. She slept herself sober.
b. The jackhammer pounded us deaf.
*c. The feather tickled her silly.
5. What semantic constraint on the resultative construction licenses sentences (a) and rules out sentences (b):
a. He jerked the door open.
Sam cut himself free.
This man probably just wanted Mother to … kiss him unconscious.
*b. The bear growled us afraid.
He encouraged her confident.
He drank himself funny.
The” way” construction
7. Consider the means-interpretation of the way construction and state which
of the following sentences sound semantically correct:
a. Sally drank her way through the glass of lemonade.
b. Sally drank her way through the case of vodka.
c. Welcome our new daughter-in-law, who just married her way into our family.
d. Welcome our new daughter-in-law, who just married into our family.
8. Explain what semantic constraints on the way construction rule out the
following sentences:
*a. With a single bullet, Jones shot his way through the crowd.
*b. She jumped her way over the ditch.
*c. The butter melted its way off the turkey.
*d. She wandered her way over the field.
*e. Joe shoved his way among the crowd.
III. Study the following sentences which are those expressing complex event
structures, such as, process-motion, action-causation (action), process-causation (motion), action/process-causation (change of state), mode of motion-motion, path-motion, state-causation (change of state), mental action-physical action, process- causation (change of state), mode of action/instrument-action, action-causation (motion). Identify the event types which receive conflated representation in the given sentences. Consider the role of syntactic patterns in the event integration:
1. Byron’s bus grumbled down Jamboree street.
2. He dozed his way into the new cut, woke and dozed again.
3. She danced out of the room.
4. I zig-zagged /circled/ through the woods.
5. Virginia begins to unpin her hair, carefully counting the hairpins into a matchbox.
6. I straight-armed the door open.
7. His friends laughed Bill out of the town.
8. Soames took his seat in the center of the settee, oblivious of Ting-a-ling before the fire, sleeping off the attentions of Anabel Nazing, who had found him “just too cunning”.
9. You must have realized your dad was going to worry himself sick until you were found.
10. She ate slowly, trying to charm centimes from the passing tourists.
11. She cried a Japanese Napkin to a pulp.
12. I even coughed some of pastry onto Janice’s plate.
SEMINAR 11
SYNTAX OF THE TEXT
Points for Discussion
1. Text as an object of linguistic study.
2. Inter-sentence connections in the text. The phenomenon of parcellation.
3. The textual linguistics.
Points for Reports
1. Textual categories (from M.A.K., R. Hasan “Cohesion in English” in the book by
Blokh M.Y., Semionova T.N., Timofeyeva S.V. Theoretical English Grammar.
Seminars. Moscow, 2007, Pp. 408-411)
2. Types of sequence-signals (from W. N. Francis “The structure of American English”
in the book by Blokh M.Y., Semionova T.N., Timofeyeva S.V. Theoretical English
Grammar. Seminars. Moscow, 2007, Pp. 404-408)
Literature
1. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. Moscow, 2006.
2. Blokh M.Y., Semionova T.N., Timofeyeva S.V. Theoretical English Grammar.
Seminars. Moscow, 2007.
3. Beaugrande R., Dressler W. Introduction to Text Linguistics. – L., N.Y., 1996.
4. Lectures on syntax (this book).
5. Iofic L.L., Chakhoyan L.P., Pospelova A.G. Readings in the theory of English
Grammar. – Leningrad, 1972.
6. Leech Y., Svartvik G. A Communicative Grammar of English. Moscow, 1986.
7. Воробьева О.П. Текстовые категории и фактор адресата. Киев,1993.
8. Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М.,
1981.
9. Дигмай В.Н. Абзац, сложное синтаксическое целое, компоненты текста.
Общее и различное // Филологические науки, 2002, №2, стр. 56-66.
11. Мещеряков В.Н. К вопросу о модальности текста // Филологические
науки, 2001, №4, стр. 99-105.
12. Москальская О.И. Грамматика текста. – М.,1981.
13. Никитин М.В. Курс лингвистической семантики. –
С.-Петербург, Научный центр проблем диалога, 1996.
14. Солодуб Ю.П. Интертекстуальность как лингвистическая проблема //
Филологические науки, 2001, № 4, стр. 45-54.
15. Тураева З.Я. Лингвистика текста. М., 1986.
Practical tasks