§ 3. Petersburg School of Functional Grammar. Theory of functional grammar (TFG) A. V. Bondarko
The formation of the concept of TFG began in the 1970s and 1980s. A year after the publication of the academic "United States Grammar (1980) A. V. Bondarko publishes the article "The Basics of Constructing Functional Grammar." From 1981 to 1987, the basic principles of the concept are developed, basic concepts are defined - the functional semantic field and the categorical situation. In 1987, the first volume of the six-volume collective work appears under the general title "Theory of Functional Grammar." The first volume is devoted to the verbal category of the species, which is represented in three functional-semantic fields: aspectuality, temporal localization and taxis. The second volume was published in 1990, and the last, the sixth, in 1996. The results of this collective study were summed up in the book by AV Bondarko, "Fundamentals of Functional Grammar: The Language Interpretation of the Idea of Time" (2001). And since 2000, volumes have begun to be published under the general title "Problems of Functional Grammar," in which another "input" is proposed. in the linguistic system - not from grammatical meaning to grammatical form, but from a certain linguistic problem, for example, from the problem of interrelations of the system-linguistic and speech aspects of morphological and syntactic categories, to the linguistic system.
TFG creates a classification, system-descriptive model of categorical grammar. This model, arising in the framework of the Leningrad typological school, represents the United States grammatical system in the series of grammars of other languages. The comparative aspect of TFG determined the categorical-morphological nature of TFG, in contrast to the FCG, which is addressed to the text and the speaker as the creator of the text. FCG is a system-explanatory grammar that recognizes the priority of syntax over morphology. The FCG interprets the morphological categories of names and verbs within the minimal syntactic unit (the syntaxum, quantitatively equal to the wordform, the sentence member), and within the communicative unit (sentence) - with respect to the syntactic whole of the text.
A. V. Bondarko, summarizing the work of the TFG research team for two decades, showed [Bondarko, 2001] the difference between TFG, first, from the previous traditional formal-descriptive grammar and, secondly, from the functional-communicative grammar developed under the direction of G A. Zolotovoy. The difference from the traditional grammar of AV Bondarko states as follows: "If the traditional grammar answers primarily to the question" how is the linguistic system arranged? "Then the functional grammar, of course, considering the structure of this system and its elements, seeks to answer the question" how does it work? ". If traditional grammar analyzes and describes linguistic facts predominantly or exclusively in the direction from form to meaning, then functional grammar assumes the dominant role of analyzing linguistic material in the direction from sense to expression, from functions to means of their realization. This is due to the desire to reflect the speaker's position in the grammatical description, the most important aspect of his thought-speech activity is the movement from the meaning he wants to express to the realization of this intention in a concrete utterance " [FROM. 5-6]. At the same time traditional (level, descriptive) grammar and functional grammar are in the relations of mutual complement:
These types of grammar complement each other in a wide field of grammatical research [FROM. 8].
In order to characterize different directions within the framework of modern functional grammar, A. V. Bondarko proposed the dominant principle: he describes TFG as a model with a system-language dominant, and KG as a model with a communicative-speech dominant [S. 8-9]. This means that each theory is distinguished by its priority: TFG - system-descriptive, FCG - system-explaining. TFG represents the grammatical system of the United States language from categorical (fatal) meanings to ways of expressing them. FCG represents United States grammar as a mechanism of speech generation (oral and written) in the systemic interaction of meanings, functions and forms.
Typical for TFG is, (1) that the starting point for research thought are morphological categories (for example, categories of the verb); (2) that the language unit is understood as a two-dimensional entity within the level system of the language; (3) that the theoretical basis and terminological apparatus of the concept provide not only a representation of the United States language system from within, but also a comparative study of different linguistic systems.
Each grammatical theory is based on certain scientific concepts, which are the main tools for representing language material. In TFG are the concepts of function, semantic category, functional semantic field and categorical situation.
Working in a two-dimensional system, the TFG representatives view the function as the intent of the language unit to express a certain (grammatical) meaning, for example, the ability of the second person verb forms singular. serve to express an attitude towards the addressee of speech or to the "generalized person" [Bondarko, 2002. P. 40]. With this approach, it becomes necessary to show the relationship between the concepts of meaning and function. Arguing with V. Dressler, A. V. Bondarko suggests talking about the "semantic function", which is not identical with the meaning, since "any value can be regarded as a function of a certain means or complex of linguistic means, but not every function is a value (cf. structural functions of means of reconciliation, connecting morphemes, etc.) [FROM. 342]. The concept of function in TFG differs from the concept of function in the works of the Prague Linguistic School. A.Bondarko speaks of these differences: "Representatives of the Prague school put forward the concept of inter-level correlation of means and functions, including, in particular, the following provisions: language levels are in relation to the highest levels as the area of their construction means, and relation to the lower levels - as an area of their functional purpose ... Unlike the concept relating functions of units of a given level to the next (higher) levels, we proceed from the fact that the function has certain forms of existence, not only at these higher levels, but also at the level that is constituted by a given unit [FROM. 346-347].
Semantic categories (time, space, quality, quantity, etc.) as universal semantic constants constitute the content foundation of the FSP [Bondarko, 2001. P. 28].
Functional-semantic field (FSP) is a grouping of different levels of the given language interacting on the basis of the generality of their semantic functions and expressing variants of a certain semantic category [Bondarko, 2002. P. 289]. The functional-semantic field is a semantic category, considered in unity with the system of means of its expression in a given language [Bondarko, 2001. P. 17].
If the description of each FSP gives an idea of the paradigmatic system of multilevel language tools serving to express variants of a certain semantic category in the language under study, then the categorial situations presented in the multistage system of variance reflect the representation of the semantic categories in speech. [FROM. 26]. Thus, FSP is a way of gathering (by the researcher) language tools of different levels around one semantic category and a way of representing this category in a descriptive grammar. The concept of CS "serves to analyze the functional variants of a given semantic category, expressed in the utterance [FROM. 27]. The concept of CS in TFG is used to explain the relationship between the language category and the conditions of its expression in speech, that is, in A. Bondarko's opinion, to explain the relationship between the system and the environment.
In order to connect the system of the FCS with the traditional grammatical model, AV Bondarko introduces another concept - the "grammatical unity". Such grammatical unity becomes a part of speech ( grammatically characterized lexicon class ), as well as a sentence ( it integrates the properties of the grammatical unit and grammatical unity [p. 31].
Agreeing with the theorists of systemic nature, AV Bondarko adopts the following definition of the system: "the system as a set of elements with relations and connections between them that form a certain integrity, manifests and forms all its properties in interaction with the environment. The interdependence of the system and the environment is considered as one of the system principles, along with such system properties as integrity and hierarchy. The concept of the functioning (behavior) of an object includes its connections with the environment. This also applies to the functioning of language system objects [Bondarko, 2002. S. 193-194].
And further, A. V. Bondarko applies the notions of system and environment for representing relations: (a) between grammar and vocabulary, (b) between language and speech, (c) between categories in the grammatical system itself. The system objects in TFG include the sentence, the grammatical category (type, time, pledge, etc.), the functional semantic field (aspectuality, temporality, pledge, etc.), various groupings of grammatical categories (system of verbal categories, system of nominal categories), "word forms, parts of speech, sentence members" [FROM. 194].
"The environment with respect to a language unit, category or grouping as the source system is treated as follows: it is a set of linguistic (in some cases also extralinguistic) elements, playing the role of the environment in relation to the initial system, in interaction with which it performs its function. In the implementation of system values of grammatical categories, the role of the environment is performed by elements of the context and the speech situation; to the environment are lexical values and lexico-grammatical categories of words that affect this category, as well as elements of the "categorical environment" - other grammatical categories that interact with the category considered as the source system. Thus, the implementation of the category of the verbal species under conditions of species correlation or non-correlation and the use of the forms of the perfect and imperfect type depends on the elements of the context of the type once , often , suddenly , gradually , etc., from such elements of the speech situation as observability (and wider, perceptuality), from the lexical meaning of the verb, its belonging to the bits of limiting and unsaturated verbs, and to one or another mode of action , from interaction on the part of the categories of time, inclination, person and pledge [FROM. 194].
In the six-volume TFG, the United States grammatical system is represented as a set of functional-semantic fields, from which the following FSPs are considered: aspectuality (type and methods of the verbal action), temporal localization (particular values of the time category), taxis (simultaneity / time), temporality, modality, personality, zalogovost, subjectivity, objectivity, communicative perspective, certainty / uncertainty, qualitative, quantitative, locality, beingness, pos ssivnost, conditionality temporal order. The seven first FSPs represent the verbal categories: type - aspectuality, type and time - temporal localization, the species-time ratio of the verbal forms - taxis; time - temporality, inclination - modality, person - personality, pledge - zalogovost. The four following fields relate to the level of the sentence and interpret the functions of the nominal word forms in the sentence. FSP quality is formed around a certain part of speech - the adjective, the FSP of quantitative - around the category of numbers. Locality fields (place), beingness, posessivnosti (possession, belonging) and conditionality (causality in a broad sense) represent certain types of syntactic structures - sentences with the meaning of being, location, possession, as well as polypredicative constructions expressing the conditionality of one situation of another. The Temporary Temporary Temporary Interpretation Committee interprets the category of time as a category of text.
Let's turn directly to the description of the semantic categories proposed in TFG, in particular, to the FSP of temporality, taxis, personality and quantification.
The FSP of temporality is formed around the verbal category of time. Accordingly, the categorial semantics will be presented in connection with the grammatical meaning of the time category: "The semantic category under consideration reflects the linguistic interpretation of human perception of the time of designated situations relative to the moment of the speaker's speech or other starting point of reference. The main division in this semantic sphere is the "simultaneity (present) / predecessor (past) / following (future) [FROM. 473].
Temporality FCS is a system functioning in interaction with the environment, to which: (a) other verbal categories (type, inclination, person and pledge), for the category of time, the most important is the interaction with the category of inclination and the category of the species; (b) other FSPs in the aspect of the temporal complex (aspectuality, temporal localization, taxis, temporal order); (c) FSP of the person (category of person) in the system of deictic means; (d) syntactic context (sentence and text).
Like any functional-semantic field, the temporal FSP is divided into center and periphery. In the center is the grammatical category of time, which in United States is "limited by the frame of the indicative mood" [FROM. 484]. The following components of the given field can be assigned to the nearest environment of the core of the FCS temporal (and to the nearest periphery): 1) Analytic participle-passive forms of the type was considered - considered - will be considered; 2) the forms of the full participles of the past ( considered , considered , considered ) and present tense ( considering , the considered ) ; 3) the formation of the type was saying , eat , interfered , sewed , sang , hanged with the meaning of "old custom"; 4) vertex-free syntactic constructions with the present-day value, correlating with constructions including forms like was , will ( Night, Cold , etc.) ; [FROM. 486].
To the far periphery, A. V. Bondarko refers: "1) gerunds in the composition of participial constructions; 2) syntactic constructions with a modal meaning that implicates the temporal attribution of the situation or one of its elements to the future ( Go! Build! Have a rest, go to the outfit, Help you? I can get acquainted with my acquaintances , etc.) P.); 3) lexical circumstantial indicators of the type now , tomorrow , in two weeks , yesterday , a year ago , long etc .; 4) constructions with time unions of type when , while , while , as soon as , only only , barely etc .; similar constructions (subordinate parts of the corresponding complex sentences) are included in the expression of the taxis, but at the same time they perform an adverbial temporal function comparable to the circumstantial function of the lexical means mentioned; 5) various contextual means of transferring temporal relations that do not have a definite and homogeneous structural characteristic, for example, then , in later works ...; remember ...; in your dreams ... , etc. [FROM. 491-492].
To the linguistic interpretation of the category of time, the FSS of Taxis also applies. The term taxis (order) was introduced by R. Jakobson to denote the temporary relationship between two events expressed in the United States language by homogeneous predicates or participial and participial forms.
In modern United States philology there are two understandings of the term "taxis" - Broad (as the relation between predicative units in all three predicative categories - modality, time and face) and narrow, going back to the works of R. Jacobson and Yu. S. Maslov (as a temporary relationship between predicative units). TFG speaks of a taxi in the narrow sense of the word: "The invasive value of taxis can be defined as the temporal correlation of actions, correlation within a single time plan expressed in the polypredicative constructions" [S.505].
The invariant meaning of the taxis appears in the following main variants:
a) the simultaneity / relationship of non-simultaneity (precedence-follow-up): So far we seated , he went through papers (simultaneity); Like just finish the conversation with you , report (sequence);b) the temporal correlation of actions in combination with the causation relationships (causal, conditional, ceding): Realizing this , he changed its decision (precedence and causal relations); Realizing this , it still did not change its decision (precedence and assignment); c) interrelation of actions within the framework of a single time plan with non-actualization of the above chronological relations: All evening before dinner, he sang , whistled , noisy played with the dog (actions in the designated extralinguistic situation may be partly simultaneous, partly at different times (possibly interleaved), but the chronological relationships are not updated: it is important only that the whole evening was filled with marked actions "[S. 506]. The term "taxis" covers two types of conjugation of actions in time within the framework of a polypredicative complex: 1) the correlation of the basic and dependent predicate ( dependent taxis , represented in participial, participial and some other constructions, including combination of basic and dependent predication); 2) the correlation of two or more "peers" predicates ( independent taxis in constructions with homogeneous predicates, in compound sentences and in compound sentences of different types - with subordinate clauses, conditions, concessions, with subordinate explanatory) [FROM. 508].
Accordingly, in the Taxi Taxi, two centers and two peripheries are distinguished:
Dependent taxis. The central component is constructions with gerunds of perfect and imperfect type. Peripheral components: a) constructions with participles; b) prepositional-case constructions of type when considering in conjunction with the verb.
Independent taxis. Center:
1) the ratio of the species-time forms in compound sentences with subordinate clauses and in unionless complex;
2) the ratio of the species-time forms in sentences with homogeneous predicates and in compound sentences.
1) the ratio of the species-time forms in complex sentences with subordinate clauses, causes, consequences and concessions;
2) the ratio of the species-temporal forms in the compound with the subordinate explanatory [S. 513].
The personality's FCF is associated with the grammatical category of the person, which is treated in TFG as a characteristic of the participants in the indicated situation in relation to participants in the speech situation - primarily to the speaker " [FROM. 543].
In general, the semantics of the face is a field structure in which the center and the periphery are distinguished, and in each of these spheres a certain hierarchy is outlined. In the content of personality, the vertex position is occupied by the 1st person I representing the speaker. With him corresponds the 2nd person you. The nearest periphery of the semantics of personality (or, perhaps, an intermediate area between the center and the periphery - there are no sharp edges here) is the sphere of semantics of the third person that is associated with indicating exactly the person (s). The sphere of "third parties" actively interacts with the semantic core of personality. The same should be said about the semantics of the generalized personality (associated with the generalized and modified relation to the speaker and the listener) and indefiniteness (connected primarily with the uncertainty of the class of "third parties"). As for the objective third person, it has a clearly peripheral character, since it is an external environment, opposed to the actual persons who are either really participating or can participate in the speech act. On the extreme periphery, where the signs of personality are partly blurred, the meaning of the forms of impersonality is "&"; [FROM. 545].
Personality PKF is treated as a grouping of different-level (morphological, syntactic, lexical, and combined - lexical and grammatical) tools of the given language, serving to express various options for dealing with a person [FROM. 547-548].
A characteristic feature of the FCA personal in languages of different types is the union and interaction in the center of the field of the grammatical category of the verb and pronoun's face. The central grammatical components of a given field can be combined with peripheral lexical means involved in the expression of the relation to the person, for example: Your humble servant also put his signature ; The author of these lines brings gratitude; Our family expresses sympathy; Our brother does not have to dream about this; Your grace about such trifles does not think. The expression of attitude to the person is possible in utterances that do not contain verbal and pronominal forms of the face. These are, for example, utterances like Silence! Build! The hand! , etc., where the intonation-syntactic means expressing the imperative modality transmit and the associated motivation of the motivation to the 2-mule " [FROM. 548].
"The central role in the FSP in the United States language is played by grammatical forms of the face of verbs and personal pronouns (acting in the position of the subject). Other means of expressing the semantics of a person, representing more particular subsystems and limited by the conditions of their functioning, belong to the periphery of this field [FROM. 569]. To the nearest periphery are personal pronouns in indirect cases and pronouns possessive, reciprocal.
On the periphery of the personal FC, there is also an indirect expression of attribution to the person, enclosed in participial constructions, since they are related to the rule of one-subjectness of the secondary and main action: I go , looking around ( looking back gets a relation to 1-mulitsu due to the correlation with the 1st person A go; cf. He goes , looking around ") [S. 577].
In the field of nominal categories, the semantic category of quantity and, correspondingly, the FSC of quantitation are of interest. The quantity is considered by the representatives of TFG, on the one hand, "as a semantic category, which is a linguistic interpretation of the mental category of quantity, and on the other - as a functional semantic field based on the given semantic category - grouping of different levels of the given language interacting on the basis of quantitative functions" [TFG, 1996. P. 161].
"The quantity in United States refers to the number of FSPs of polycentric type. This field is based, on the one hand, on the grammatical category of the number (first of all nouns), and on the other - on the names of numerals, quantitative-nominal combinations, adjective and adverbial indicators of quantitative relations. Finally, a special type of quantity is represented in the sphere of verbal predicates [FROM. 161]. Thus, the quantitative category is also considered in connection with the idea of countability (the category of number), and with the idea of repeatability in time (verbal indicators of duration, repetition), and in connection with the idea of measure (the degree of comparison of adjectives).
The study of the counting of uncounting, expressed by the number of names by a noun ("n quantitation"), requires the correlation of the category of number and the semantics of nouns, i.e. the identification of conditions for the interaction of the category of quantity and lexico-semantic categories of nouns (subject, abstract, collective, material, etc.). In this case, the traditional n morphology of nouns pluralia tantum and singularia tantum is not illuminated from form (prohibitions on single or plural forms) but from the semantics of objectivity, abstractness or collectivity. Verbal Quantity is detected not only by means of secondary impersonation ( ask - ask many times ), but also analytically - adverbial and nominal multiplicity indicators ( regularly doing exercises, reading glossy magazines ).
In the field of view of the TFG are also the syntactic categories, i.e. such grammatical values that belong to the level of predicative units (sentence level) and text. First, the semantic categories correlated with the concept of the sentence member are subjectivity and objectivity, which ensure the realization of the basic nominal valences of the transitive verb, as well as locality (compare the circumstance of the place) and the category of definiteness / uncertainty. Secondly, categories, the plan of expression of which are complex and complicated sentences, is conditionality. Third, the regularity of the level of the text is the communicative perspective of the utterance.
Thus, the St. Petersburg school of functional grammar is a scientific direction in which, despite possible differences in the interpretation of particular problems (the school of science unites differently thinking scientists), there is a "generality of the fundamental starting positions and objectives of the study. The generality consists of: 1) the focus of analysis primarily on the content of the categories in question, 2) in this correlation of this content with the form of linguistic expression, which seeks to reveal the effect of the form on the representation of the actualized semantics, 3) in an effort to study the interaction of different levels of linguistic means participating in the implementation of the semantic functions under consideration [TFG, 1992. P.3].
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay