The problem of the anticipatory “it”.
“It” as the subject can be used in 3 ways. (1) notional “it”, (2) formal “it”, (3) emphatic “it”. The NOTIONAL it can be: a) personal (indicates a definite thing/idea, e.g. “The door was open. It creaked”), b) demonstrative (points to a personal thing expressed by a predicative noun, e.g. “It’s John”). The EMPHATIC it – to emphasize any part of the sentence, e.g. “It was he who did it”, “It was there that they went”. The FORMAL it can be: a) the impersonal it – used in impersonal sentences which denote natural phenomena, time or distance. It is the impersonal subject devoid of lex. meaning. b) the anticipatory (introductory) it – found in sentences where the predicate is modified by infinitive, a gerund, a for-phrase, or a clause, e.g. “It is stupid to miss such a chance” (modified by the infinitive), “It’s no use speaking to her” (gerund), “It’s necessary that he be told” (clause). The status of formal “it” causes disagreement among gramm-s – the real subject takes an unusual place at the end of the sentence, after the predicate => most gramm-s argue that subject is expressed by the infinitive, for-phrase… The anticipatory particle “it” takes the usual place of the subject. For that reason – anticipatory (introductory) subject of the sentence. But more correct – the anticipatory “it”. To prove that it’s the real subject that follows the predicate, the method of equivalent transformation is used => the sentence “It’s stupid to miss such a chance” è “To miss such a chance is stupid” => the real subject takes its usual place. Some ling-s say this transformation can hardly be called equivalent from the point of view of actual division of the sentence + point out that in the first sent. – the position of the rheme => was emphasized. But when it took the initial position – the position of the theme – it expressed the starting point => of less importance. Hence, these linguists don’t share the view that it’s real subject placed before the object => they use the term “introductory subject” as to the particle “to”.
Some scholars analyse the clause introduced by the anticipatory construction as presenting two possibilities of interpretation: 1) traditional view - this is just a subject clause introduced by the anticipatory it, 2) the clause introduced by it is appositive. The appositive type of connection between the introducer it and the introduced clause is proved by the very equivalent transformation of the non-anticipatory construction into the anticipatory one; but the exposition of the appositive character of the clause does not make the antecedent it into something different from an introductory pronominal element. Thus, the interpretation of the subject clause referring to the introducer it as appositive, in fact, simply explains the type of syntactic connection underlying the anticipatory formula.
|
|
|
The syntax of the phrase.
Within the domain of syntax two levels should be distinguished: that of phrases and that of sentences. "Phrase" is every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word (as, for instance, the perfect forms of verbs). The constituent elements of a phrase may belong to any part of speech. A phrase is a means of naming some phenomena or processes, just as a word is. Each component of a phrase can undergo grammatical changes in accordance with grammatical categories represented in it, without destroying the identity of the phrase.
Traditional classification of phrases: the phrases are classified on part of speech bases:
V+A, N+V
A+adj, N+Adj
A+A
N+N
Phrases are made up not by notional words, but by functional words – in accordance with\ according to. They have conjunctions or words functioning not like notional. Syntactic relations:
Agreement and government – согласование и управление – типы семантических отношений между словами во фразе.
Agreement (concold) – when a subordinate word assumes a form similar to that of the word to which it is subordinate. There are very few cases of such words (numbers and pronouns). Insignificant way of joining words in modern English
Eg these feet, this food,
A certain form of word is used required by the form of the head word – the use of the objective case of a personal pronoun – tell me, find me, invite me (необходимость употребления определенного слова после), who\whom did you see – insignificant in modern English
|
|
|
Notional phrases, formative phrases and functional phrases. Notional words (phrases) denote complex phenomenon, they consist of grammatically connected notional words, in a low voice, with difficulty, must finish – formative phrases, consisting of functional and notional words. Functional words are sometimes called connectors – they are used as connectors, functional phrases consist of functional words alone – so as, as to, don’t, lets, up to
Notional phrases can be subdivided into: equipotent phrases and dominational phrases. E.ph consist of words of an equent rank, they may be syndatical (with the help of conjunctions – eg. came and went) and asyndetical are those that are formed without conjunctions (Marry`s, not John`s). Equipotent phrases fall into 2 groups as well – coordinate and cumulative, the separation depends on category of nomination (coordinative – логически последовательные связи – logically consecutive connections – prose and poetry, pros and cons). Cumulative are characterized by unequality – coordinative conjunctions (but)
Дата добавления: 2019-01-14; просмотров: 1118; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!