44
The ministry of Higher and Secondary Special Education of the republic of Uzbekistan
Gulistan State University
«The System of English Verbs»
Gulistan 2008
1. Theoretical background
In contemporary semantics a broad distinction is drawn between denotation (referential) approach and language-intrinsic (or language-immanent) approach. This distinction follows from the opposition of two aspects of meaning: denotation and sense. As a rule the analysis of denotation results in the description of specific properties of extralinguistic objects denoted by a word (e.g. B. Pottier's analysis of the field siege (chaise, fauteuil, tabouret, canape, pouf - chair, armchair, stool, sofa, pouf) is known to result in the distinction of such concrete and unique denotational components as S1 - with back, S2 - with legs, S3 - for a single person, S4 - for sitting, S5 - with arms, S6 - made from hard material).
The procedure proposed in the study is based on the principles of language-immanent approach in semantics (cf. E.N. Bendix, E. Coseriu, H. Geckeler, J. Lyons, J. Apresjan, A. Ufimtseva). It is assumed that it is definition of sense in terms of a limited number of semes that can provide the description of the semantic system of language.
Sense (being opposed to denotation) is considered as linguistic (language-immanent) meaning expressing the most essential features of an object denoted by a word.
Sense components, or SEMES (semantic markers in Katzian semantics; classemes in B. Pottier's and A. Greimas's approach) - such as abstract - concrete, definite - indefinite, etc. - reveal structural relations within semantic system. They are few in number and recur throughout the entire vocabulary. Semes are represented as binary / tertiary oppositions. For example, the seme definite - indefinite has binary structure: definite is the positive value (variant) of the seme; indefinite is the negative value (variant).
At present there is no elaborate integral method of the analysis of sense structure of lexemes, and traditionally semantic analysis is carried out only on the paradigmatic level of the lexicon. In this study an attempt was made to propose the technique of the analysis of sense structure which involves the description of both syntagmatic relations (in particular, interrelations of semes and semantic concord of lexemes in the text) and paradigmatic relations in the lexicon (the structure of semantic fields).
Though the technique proposed in this study cannot claim to provide an integrated description of the semantic structure of natural language, it proved to be effective in the analysis of the semantic fields of different language systems. The results of the research can be relevant to structural semantics (description of semantic relations, elaboration of formal representations (frames, thesauri)), they may be applied in lexicography, computational linguistics and language teaching.
The problem of the theme is that the system of the English verb is rightly considered to be the most complex grammatical structure of the language. The most troublesome problems are, indeed, concentrated in the area of the finite verb, and include, in particular, questions tense, aspect and modal auxiliary usage. This seems to be an aim of our work which has always gained the greatest interest in language learning. We can say with little fear of exaggeration that learning a language is to a very large degree learning how to operate the verbal forms of that language.
In Modern English, as well as in many other languages, verbal forms imply not only subtle shades of time distinction but serve for other purposes, too; they are also often marked for person and number, for mood, voice and aspect.
The general categorial meaning of the verb is process presented dynamically, i.e. developing in time. This general processual meaning is embedded in the semantics of all the verbs, including those that denote states, forms of existence, types of attitude, evaluations, etc., rather than actions. Edgar's room led out of the wall without a door. She had herself a liking for richness and excess. It was all over the morning papers. That's what I'm afraid of. I do love you, really I do. And this holds true not only about the finite verb, but also about the non-finite verb. The processual semantic character of the verbal lexeme even in the non-finite form is proved by the fact that in all its forms it is modified by the adverb and, with the transitive verb, it takes a direct object. Mr. Brown received the visitor instantly, which was unusual. - Mr. Brown's receiving the visitor instantly was unusual. - It was unusual for Mr. Brown to receive the visitor instantly. But: An instant reception of the visitor was unusual for Mr. Brown Language Log: How to defend yourself from bad advice about writing The American Heritage Book of English Usage, ch. 1, sect. 24 "double passive." Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.
The processual categorial meaning of the notional verb determines its characteristic combination with a noun expressing both the doer of the action (its subject) and, in cases of the objective verb, the recipient of the action (its object); it also determines its combination with an adverb as the modifier of the action.
From the point of view of their outward structure, verbs are characterised by specific forms of word-building, as well as by the formal features expressing the corresponding grammatical categories.
The verb stems may be simple, sound-replacive, stress-replacive, expanded, composite, and phrasal.
The original simple verb stems are not numerous, such verbs as go, take, read, etc. But conversion (zero-suffixation) as means of derivation, especially conversion of the «noun - verb» type, greatly enlarges the simple stem set of verbs, since it is one of the most productive ways of forming verb lexemes in modern English, a cloud - to cloud, a house - to house; a man - to man; a park - to park, etc.
13. Ãðàììàòèêà àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà (íà àíãëèéñêîì ÿçûêå) / Ïîä ðåä. Â.Ë. Êàóøàíñêîé. - 4_å èçä. - Ë.: Ïðîñâåùåíèå, 1973. - 319 ñ.
14. Ãðàììàòèêà ñîâðåìåííîãî àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà: A new university English grammar: Ó÷åáíèê äëÿ ñòóä. âûñø. ó÷åá. çàâåäåíèé / Ïîä ðåä. À.Â. Çåëåíùèêîâà, Å.Ñ. Ïåòðîâîé. - Ì.; ÑÏá.: Academia, 2003. - 640 ñ.
15. Ãóðåâè÷ Â.Â. Òåîðåòè÷åñêàÿ ãðàììàòèêà àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ñðàâíèòåëüíàÿ òèïîëîãèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî è ðóññêîãî ÿçûêîâ: Ó÷åá. ïîñîáèå. - Ì.: Ôëèíòà, Íàóêà, 2003. - 168 ñ.
16. Ãóðååâ Â.À. Ó÷åíèå î ÷àñòÿõ ðå÷è â àíãëèéñêîé ãðàììàòè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè (XIX-XX ââ.) - Ì., 2000. - 242 ñ.
17. Internet:http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/articles/theory/the
18. Internet:http://www.englishlanguage.ru/main/studyarticles/
19. Internet:http://www.esllessons.edu/mainpage/lessonplans/articles.htm
20. Internet:http://www.freeesays.com/languages/S. Hal How to Learn English grammar.htm
21. Internet:http://www.yandex.narod.ru/filolog.ru/grammarunits/îá Äèäêîâñêàÿ
22. Wheeler C.J., Schumsky D.A. The morpheme boundaries of some English derivational suffixes // Glossa. - Burnaby, 1980. - Vol. 14, ¹1. - P. 3-34.
23. Woisetschlaeger E.F. A semantic theory of the English auxiliary system. - New York; London: Garland, 1985. - 127 p.
24. Wolfgang U.D. Morphology // Handbook of discourse analysis. - Vol. 2. Dimensions of discourse. - London; Tokyo, 1985. - P. 77-86.