М. В. Ломоносова Филологический факультет Кафедра английского языкознания Когезия и когеренция в философском дискурсе на материале эссе Бертрана Расселла "О природе знакомства". Курсовая
 Скачать 1 Mb.
|
Verbal substitution.Verbal substitute do is always a head of the nominal group and it can link two separate sentences as well as the nominal substitute one. Verbal substitute doAs a substitute item, do is closely similar with the nominal substitute one, but it has some clear-cut differences. One substitutes only for the noun, while do can be a substitute either for a verb or a verb plus any of its modifiers and parts of the clause related to it. It should be pointed out that verbal substitution and ellipsis are in many cases synonymous and interchangeable. Verbal substitution, as well as the nominal one, is associated with contrast. The substitute element is an “empty filler”, so to speak, in the verbal group whose modifiers define the character of contrastive relation. In case of semantic identity between the presupposed and the presupposing elements the latter one can be expressed by do so instead of do (however, in many instances any of the two can be used with no changes in meaning). At the same time, so is obligatory when do “is REQUIRED to be the point of information because there is no element of contrast present”, for instance: “Just finish off watering those plants. And let me know when you've done so” [1]. So is less likely to occur when it is structurally (i.e. syntactically) related to the presupposed element (they are, for example, in one and the same sentence). There are two conditions when so cannot be used, which are: - If there is a comparative relation (“John is smoking more now than he used to do.”) - If the goal is repudiated (“Does Granny look after you every day? – She can’t do at weekends, because she has to go to her own house.”) Clausal substitution.Clausal substitution is a “type of substitution in which what is presupposed is not an dcment within the clause but an entire clause”7. The presupposing element is always outside the clause, for example: “Is there going to he an earthquake? — It says so.”8 Here so substitutes for the entire clause there is going to be an earthquake. Substitution of reported clauses.By a reported clause M. A. K. Halliday and Rukaiya Hasan understand a part in a complex sentence which “corresponds more or less to the concept of ‘speech’ in 'direct speech' and 'indirect speech'.9 They oppose reports to facts, claiming that although there is no clear-cut distinction between the two, this basic opposition is quite significant in language. To clarify the point, let us adduce an example: A report: Mr. Trelawney said that Peter was stuck in a traffic jam. A fact: Mr. Trelawney was angry that Peter was stuck in a traffic jam. It should be noted that in the latter instance the reported clause is not the center of information, we can insert here the expression “because of the fact that”: Mr. Trelawney was angry because of the fact that Peter was stuck in a traffic jam. In the former example such a construction would be impossible. Moreover, these are reports, not facts, that can be the substituted part in clausal substitution: Mr. Trelawney said so, but not Mr. Trelawney was angry so. In substitution of reported clauses negation can be expressed in either of the two forms: I don’t think that Peter was stuck in a traffic jam. — I think not. — I don’t think so. On closer inspection, some other factors appear to be involved in the restriction as well, for example in case of certainty there can be no substitution, for instance, I think so is normal, whereas I’m sure so is clearly not, as well as I know so. Substitution of conditional clauses.Conditional clauses are frequently substituted by means of expressions if so, suppose so, assuming so, suppose not: Is this your idea of small talk? — If so, your social skills need work. Substitution of modalized clauses.A modalized clause is by definition10 an assessment “of the probability inherent in the situation”. Substituted modalized clauses are “escorted” by modal verbs (will, would, can, could, may, might, must, should, is to and ought to) or by modal adverbs (perhaps, possibly, probably, certainly, surely etc)11: That's not funny. — Perhaps not, but it's true. Here not substitutes for the clause that’s not funny. May I give you a slice? — Certainly not. Here not substitutes for I will give you a slice (in he meaning of asking for permission). |