12. Modern English: Porovnání verzí

Aktuální verze z 24. 4. 2017, 09:48

1. Explain the nature of the so called composite predicates and consider the nature of the argument that “these constructions have legitimate uses” (p. 408).

Composite Predicates

- are predicates which consist of a quasi-auxiliary in a combination with a noun that has been formed from a verb

- quasi-auxiliaries = verbs of general meaning, such as “do, have, make, give, take”

- composite predicates can replace simple verbs

- some typical replacements are:

- give a call, make a call (instead of just call)

- have a look, take a look (instead of just look)

- give approval

- take care

- pay attention

- make reference to

- draw a conclusion from

- make an assumption

- there are some dialect differences in the use of composite predicates

- e. g. British speakers say “have a seat” while North American speakers say “take a seat”; similarly, British speakers say “make a study” and North American speakers say “do a study”

- Purists often disapprove of composite predicates: they claim they are “needlessly wordy” and they feel that they are less active, because the action is expressed by a noun rather than by a verb

- these constructions have legitimate uses, for example in uses allowing modification: we can say “take a long bath” but we cannot say “*bathe longly”

- this development is consistent with the increasing analyticity of the English language; it is also the same with phrasal verbs because both phrasal verbs and composite predicates consist of a phrase rather than a single form, which is a sign of the analyticity in the language

@@ Řádek 1: / Řádek 1: @@
-'''Composite Predicates'''
-The so-called composite predicates consist of a quasi-auxiliary (also called a light verb)—that is, a verb of general meaning such as do, have, make, draw, give, and take— in combination with a noun that has been formed from a verb. Below are some typical replacements:¨
+'''1. Explain the nature of the so called composite predicates and consider the nature of the argument that “these constructions have legitimate uses” (p. 408). '''
-Call - give a call, make a call
+Composite Predicates
-Look - have a look, take a look
-Try- have a try
+- are predicates which consist of a quasi-auxiliary in a combination with a noun that has been formed from a verb
-Approve - give approval
+- quasi-auxiliaries = verbs of general meaning, such as “do, have, make, give, take”
-Attend- pay attention
+- composite predicates can replace simple verbs
-Conclude - draw a conclusion from
+- some typical replacements are:
-assume - make an assumption
+- give a call, make a call (instead of just call)
-(Note that there are some dialect differences in the use of composite predicates; thus, British speakers say have a seat and make a study while North American speakers say take a seat and do a study)
+- have a look, take a look (instead of just look)
-Purists often disapprove of composite predicates, which they claim are needlessly wordy and feel are less ‘active’ because the action is expressed by a noun rather than a verb. However, these constructions have legitimate uses such as allowing modification (e.g. one can say take a long bath but not *bathe longly). Especially considering the modification, we must disagree with the purists, as there are some instances, where a construction without the use of a composite predicate is either impossible or even wordier (e.g. take a warm bath = ?bath warmly? = bathe in warm water). This construction might also be potentially beneficial to language learners, as it allows for countless construction with a knowledge of only a few verbs.
-Historically, the compound predicates were always available in English, but they were much less productive. But semantically, the same set of verbs has always been used (do, have, make, draw, give, and take – don, habban, niman, sellan, macian. As they developed composite predicates began to be associated with the telic aspect that is that the situation is being perspectivized as an accomplishment or achievement as in take a walk vs. walk. This aspectual function is more noticeable with composite predicates introduced by have whereas main verb have is typically stative, “light verb” have is often not, especially if the deverbal noun originates in a process verb e.g. have a dance.
-Finally, we can also see composite predicates as falling into two categories: those formed by light verbs : do, have, make, draw, give, and take and those using a more specific verbs: raise an objection, lose sight. Former are productive and form an important part of the aspectual system of English and are gramaticalized, latter are not.
+- give approval
-WORKS USED
+- take care
-Brinton, Laurel J., Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Lexicalization and Language Change: Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
+- pay attention
-Brinton, Laurel J., Leslie K. Arnovick. The English Language: A Linguistic History. Oxford University Press, 2011
+- make reference to
-'''The grammatical changes in progress in ModE.'''
+- draw a conclusion from
-) The quotative constructions, first with go, which stands for say, and second with be like, which are constructions common especially in the speech of young people, as in She goes: “Mom wants to talk to you.” or: I saw her coming and I’m like: “Oh, no!”
+- make an assumption
-- be like can be used to represent both actual speech and inferred speech or sound – what the speaker might have been thinking or might have said or uttered, including non-speech sounds
+- there are some dialect differences in the use of composite predicates
-- be all has come to function in an analogous way, as in: I said something funny and he’s all, “Write that down!”, the construction also functions in narrative to mark action, as in I was all laughing at him for days.
+- e. g. British speakers say “have a seat” while North American speakers say “take a seat”; similarly, British speakers say “make a study” and North  American speakers say “do a study”
-) Periphrastic more/most in place of the inflected comparative or superlative in words such as most friendly instead of friendliest or more deadly instead of deadlier
+- Purists often disapprove of composite predicates: they claim they are “needlessly wordy” and they feel that they are  less active, because the action is expressed by a noun rather than by a verb
-) The frequent conflation of the past tense and past participle form of verbs, usually the past tense form is extended to the past participle - this is especially common in modal + perfect constructions, as in I would have came.
+- these constructions have legitimate uses, for example in uses allowing modification: we can say  “take a long bath” but we cannot say “*bathe longly”
-- the past participle is sometimes used in place of the past tense form, as in I seen him today.
+- this development is consistent with the increasing analyticity of the English language; it is also the same with phrasal verbs because both phrasal verbs  and composite predicates consist of a phrase rather than a single form, which is a sign of the analyticity in the language
-- it can be argued that this is just a case of using the “wrong” form of the verb, but it also may well represent an extension of the process of reducing the principal parts of strong verbs (by analogy to weak verbs) to two
-) The reduction in the use of the objective form of the interrogative or relative pronoun whom  - this form is now uncommon in questions in contexts where it would be grammatically expected, as in Whom did you see? being replaced by Who did you see?
-- whom generally survives in formal speech and writing, interrogative whom occurs following a preposition, as in To whom are you speaking?, and the relative whom is more commonly retained, as in There is the woman who(m) you spoke to.
-- it is suggested that the variation in the use of who and whom suggest the present-day speakers’ uncertainty about the use of the subject and object forms and the confusion sometimes can lead to hypercorrections as in Whom do you think you are?
-) The use of the third-person plural pronoun to refer back to a grammatically singular indefinite or generic subject, especially with pronouns such as everyone or everybody as in Everybody has to take their seat now.
-- having only the masculine and feminine forms he/his and she/her, speaker have tried various strategies to overcome the lack of a common-gender third-person singular pronoun - to be more sensitive to issues of gender equality, contemporary speakers have replaced the masculine with expressions such as he/she, s/he, his/her or his or her; or have used the feminine; or have alternated between the two gendered pronouns in successive examples - another strategy is to convert the forms to plural throughout, as in All students have to take their seats no., and there appears to be growing acceptance of this solution
-) The confusion between the singular and the plural possessive (boy’s, boys’) and the plural (boys) resulting in the incorrect use of the apostrophe mark in the written form, which points to its non-functionality in written English and suggests its possible loss
-) The continuing replacement of intensifiers such as very by stronger and more expressive forms, the most common forms now being really and so - likewise we see the rise of new discourse markers to supplement older ones such as well, right, like, and all that, y’know, I mean, which are pragmatic forms generally empty of semantic content that structure the discourse and anchor it in the communicative context
-- such markers have always existed in spoken discourse, but the particular forms used are ephemeral and we can expect that some of the forms we use today will themselves be replaced by newer forms