Алматинская область, г. Капшагай
СШ№12 с ДМЦ
Zhaparov Darkhan
Comparative analysis of types of
sentences in English and Kazakh languages
The actuality and importance of the diploma work.
On the basis of we often need to communicate and
permanent cooperation between countries in the modern cultural and economical
relationships arises necessity in researches in different aspects of languages.
Especially it concerns English and Kazakh languages, firstly, we are developing
country and we need to learn foreign languages to raise competitive capacity of our people and country. Secondly, our
president determined a goal to know three languages, as: Kazakh is our state
language, Russian – official language and English – the language of
international relations worldwide, that’s we should acquire this language in
order to be more successful and to have a chance to learn in a modern world.
And in this respect the actuality of our work is
determined by the comparison of difficult syntactical units and establishment
of similar and specific characteristics of types of sentences in English and
Kazakh languages. The actuality of the research is the
comparatively-typological analysis of the sentence in English and Kazakh
languages. Comparing and contrasting the types of sentences from theoretical
and practical point of view is the actual problem of grammar. The aim of the
research is to study the phenomenon of the sentence and reveal similarities
and differences in pattern and character of manifestation of a given
phenomenon.
The goal set above proposes the solution of the
following objectives:
1. to make much more understandable the term sentence for
students and teachers;
2. to display the characteristics of English and Kazakh
sentences;
3. to assist in understanding the concept and making
correct decisions on its usage;
4. to reveal the usage of the sentence in English and
Kazakh languages;
5. to define the peculiarities of the sentence in the
scope of both languages.
The object of the research: different kinds of sentences in English and Kazakh languages
taken from the works of different authors and various styles.
The subject of the research: types of sentence in English and
Kazakh languages
The methods of the research:
comparatively-typological and contrastive analysis were used according to the
aim of the research.
The scientific novelty of the research: the scientific novelty of the research is that
research work was conducted to reveal the similarities and differences of types
of sentence in English and Kazakh languages by using comparatively-typological
and contrastive methods.
The theoretical significance of the diploma work: types
of sentence in English and Kazakh languages are researched by using
comparative-contrastive analysis and important opinions are given by
scientists about their characteristic features, their main types, similarities
and differences. Opinions and conclusions told about the types of sentence in
syntax are used in this work. Also, it gives opportunity to understand the
features of the sentence, peculiarities of its usage.
Practical significance of the diploma work: the
results of made analysis about the types of sentence would answer the
question what peculiar properties English and Kazakh languages have in some
aspects of syntactical system. The results can be taken into account in
practice of teaching English as foreign languages and allow teachers and
students to use it in their work and their future work in studying English and
Kazakh sentences. It will help to understand sentences from theoretical and
practical points of view.
The first part of the work considers the
theoretical basis of carrying out of theoretical interconnection of grammar
and syntax; theoretical interpretation of the term sentences; variations of the
phenomenon “sentence” in other languages; conceptions of the sentence; the usage of sentence in English language.
The second part of the work is dedicated to the comparative-contrastive analysis of the sentence; sentences
contrasted with English and Kazakh languages; comparison of types of
sentences in English and Kazakh languages; comparison of “types of
sentences” in English and Kazakh languages.
The structure of the work. The diploma work consists of an introduction, two
sections, conclusion and the list of references. The significance of the
theme, aims, objectives, the theoretical and practical significance of the
diploma work are found in the preface of our work.
THEORETICAL PART I. 1.1.THEORETICAL
INTERCONNECTION OF
GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX
Works on grammar were written long before modern
syntax came about; the Aṣṭādhyāyī
of Pāṇini is often cited as
an example of a premodern work that approaches the sophistication of a modern
syntactic theory [1]. In the West, the school of thought that came to be known
as "traditional grammar" began with the work of Dionysius Thrax. In linguistics, syntax
(from Ancient Greek σύνταξις
"arrangement" from σύν syn, "together", and τάξις táxis,
"an ordering") is the study of the principles and rules for
constructing sentences in natural languages. In
addition to referring to the discipline, the term syntax is also used to refer
directly to the rules and principles that govern the sentence structure of any
individual language, as in "the syntax of Modern Irish".Modern
research in syntax attempts to describe languages in terms of such rules. Many professionals
in this discipline attempt to find general rules that
apply to all natural languages. The term syntax is also used to refer to
the rules governing the behavior of mathematical systems, such as formal languages used
in logic. Although there
has been an interplay in the development of the modern theoretical frameworks
for the syntax of formal and natural languages, this article surveys only the
latter. For centuries, work in syntax was dominated by a framework known as grammaire générale, first expounded in 1660 by Antoine Arnauld in a
book of the same title. This system took as its basic premise the assumption
that language is a direct reflection of thought processes and therefore there
is a single, most natural way to express a thought. That way, coincidentally,
was exactly the way it was expressed in French. However, in the 19th century,
with the development of historical-comparative linguistics, linguists
began to realize the sheer diversity of human language and to question
fundamental assumptions about the relationship between language and logic. It
became apparent that there was no such thing as the most natural way to express
a thought, and therefore logic could no longer be relied upon as a basis for
studying the structure of language. The Port-Royal
grammar modeled the study of syntax upon that of logic. Syntactic
categories were identified with logical ones, and all sentences were analyzed
in terms of "Subject – Copula – Predicate". Initially, this view was
adopted even by the early comparative linguists such as Franz Bopp. The
central role of syntax within theoretical linguistics became clear only in the
20th century, which could reasonably be called the "century of syntactic
theory" as far as linguistics is concerned [2].
There are a number of theoretical approaches to the
discipline of syntax. One school of thought, founded in the works of Derek Bickerton, [3]sees
syntax as a branch of biology, since it conceives of syntax as the study of
linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Other linguists (e.g. Gerald Gazdar) take a
more Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of
an abstract formal
system [4]. Yet others (e.g. Joseph Greenberg)
consider grammar a taxonomical device to reach broad generalizations across
languages. Andrey
Korsakov's school of thought suggests philosophic
understanding of morphological and syntactic phenomena.
At foundations of their linguistic
ideas, lies classical philosophy which treats reality as consisting
of things,
their qualities and relationships. From
here the followers of Korsakov's school assert the subdivision of words by the parts of speech [5]. Syntactic problems
also get their enlightenment in the terms of philosophic processes [6]. Regarding the proliferation of theoretical linguistics frameworks, van Benthem and ter Meulen wrote in their 1997 (1st edition)
of «Handbook of Logic and Language»: [7]
The hypothesis of generative grammar is that language
is a structure of the human mind. The goal of generative grammar is to make a
complete model of this inner language (known as i-language). This
model could be used to describe all human language and to predict the grammaticality of any
given utterance (that is, to predict whether the utterance would sound correct
to native speakers of the language). This approach to language was pioneered by
Noam Chomsky. Most
generative theories (although not all of them) assume that syntax is based upon
the constituent structure of sentences. Generative grammars are among the
theories that focus primarily on the form of a sentence, rather than its
communicative function.
Among the many generative theories of linguistics, the
Chomskyan theories are:
- transformational Grammar (TG) (Original theory of
generative syntax laid out by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures in
1957 [8])
- government and binding theory (GB)
(revised theory in the tradition of TG developed mainly by Chomsky in the
1970s and 1980s). [9]
- minimalist program (MP) (a reworking of the theory out of
the GB framework published by Chomsky in 1995) [10].
Categorial
grammar is an approach that attributes the syntactic structure not
to rules of grammar, but to the properties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example, rather than
asserting that sentences are constructed by a rule that combines a noun phrase
(NP) and a verb phrase (VP) (e.g. the phrase structure rule S → NP VP), in categorial grammar, such
principles are embedded in the category of the head
word itself. So the syntactic category for an intransitive verb is a
complex formula representing the fact that the verb acts as a functor which requires
an NP as an input and produces a sentence level structure as an output. This
complex category is notated as (NP\S) instead of V. NP\S is read as " a
category that searches to the left (indicated by \) for a NP (the element on
the left) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right)". The category
of transitive
verb is defined as an element that requires two NPs (its subject and
its direct object) to form a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) which
means "a category that searches to the right (indicated by /) for an NP
(the object), and generates a function (equivalent to the VP) which is (NP\S),
which in turn represents a function that searches to the left for an NP and
produces a sentence). Tree-adjoining grammar is a categorial grammar that adds in
partial tree
structures to the categories.
Dependency
grammar is a different type of approach in which structure is
determined by the relations (such as grammatical relations) between a word (a head)
and its dependents, rather than being based in constituent structure. For
example, syntactic structure is described in terms of whether a particular noun is the subject or agent of the verb, rather than describing the relations in
terms of phrases.
Some dependency-based theories of syntax:
Theoretical approaches to syntax that are based upon probability
theory are known as stochastic
grammars. One common implementation of such an approach makes use of
a neural network or connectionism. Some
theories based within this approach are:
Syntax is an area of traditional
strength at USC. Syntacticians at USC work primarily within the generative
tradition, seeking to develop models of syntax as part of the human mental
faculty of language and to express generalizations about the empirical domain
of syntax as explicit formal statements embedded within a computational model
of the human linguistic ability. Fundamentally, they share the belief that the
investigation of language cannot be conducted outside of a well-articulated
theoretical framework and without rigorous empirical research.
Faculty members with a central interest in the area of
comparative syntax include Hagit Borer, Hajime Hoji, Audrey Li, Roumyana Pancheva, Mario Saltarelli, Andrew Simpson, Jean-Roger Vergnaud, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta.
Over the past two and a half decades, the accumulated record
of the research produced by the current USC syntax faculty has given rise to
major contributions to the development of syntactic theory, including the
development of, by now, widely used concepts such as Case Theory, Generalized
Binding, the Lexical Parameterization Hypothesis, Prosodically Motivated
Syntactic Movement, Neo-constructionist approaches to event structure, and
others.
An essential aspect of the construction of formal models
is accomplished through a thorough examination and analysis of particular
languages and after extensive parts of their structure have been carefully
studied and formulated. At that point, it becomes possible to ask questions
about the ways in which differences and similarities among languages can be
formally captured. As a result, much of the task of the syntactician is to
conduct a comparative study of specific structures within and across languages.
Comparative syntax continues to be one of the mainstays of USC Linguistics,
with an unusually broad range of language areas covered. Language areas studied
in detail at USC are: East Asian languages, including Chinese, Japanese, and
Korean; Southeast Asian languages, including Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese;
South Asian languages, including Bengali and Hindi; Romance, including French,
Italian, Romanian, and Spanish; Semitic languages, in particular Arabic and
Hebrew; and Slavic languages, in particular Bulgarian, Old Church Slavonic, and
Russian, as well as Balkan languages. Specific phenomena studied by
syntacticians here include but are not limited to WH-movement and resumptive
pronouns in Arabic and in Chinese (Li); quantifier scope and anaphoric
relations in Japanese (Hoji); the interaction of morphology and
syntax in Hebrew and in English (Borer); the interaction of focus and
movement in Germanic and Romance languages (Zubizarreta); the structure of nominal phrases in Romance (Vergnaud, Zubizarreta), Hebrew and English (Borer), and Southeast Asian languages (Simpson); and clitics and phrase structure
in Slavic and Balkan languages (Pancheva) [11].
Fundamentally, syntax is a computational system that
interfaces between sound and meaning. While some work at USC deals almost
exclusively with the properties of that computational system, other work
focuses on the interface between the syntactic computational system and other
linguistic systems, such as semantics, phonology, morphology, and the lexicon.
Work on the properties of syntax as a computational system includes the study
of the relations between chains and phases (Vergnaud) and a refinement of the notion of
syntactic head (Borer). Work on the syntax-phonology interface includes the
relations between focus and phrasal stress (Zubizarreta), prosodic constraints on clitic placement (Pancheva), and phases and tone sandhi (Simpson); work on the syntax-semantics
interface includes anaphora and scope dependencies (Higginbotham, Hoji, Li), focus (Zubizarreta, Guerzoni), questions (Li, Guerzoni, Higginbotham, Simpson, Vergnaud), intervention effects (Guerzoni, Li, Vergnaud, Zubizarreta), comparatives (Pancheva), grammatical aspect (Pancheva), and event structure (Borer, Higginbotham, Schein, Zubizarreta). Work on the syntax-lexicon interface includes the study of
the grammatical properties, if any, of lexical representations (Borer, Zubizarreta). Work on the syntax-morphology
interface includes the development of formal systems of word formation (Borer). Pancheva and Simpson study diachronic syntax and grammatization.
The investigation of language as a mental human ability
is central to the generative approach, and as a result, interest in the
relations between the study of the brain and the study of syntax is a
significant part of the interest of most generative syntacticians in general
and at USC in particular. Interfacing with the area of Neuroscience, Pancheva studies the breakdown of functional structure in aphasia
patients as well as the electro-physiological correlates of such structures in
normal adults. Interfacing with psycholinguistics, Borer studies the acquisition of functional structure and event
structure in first language learners, and Zubizarreta studies the acquisition of lexico-syntactic structures by
second language learners of different ages. Interfacing with computational
neuroscience, in collaboration with Arbib of Computer Science and Neuroscience,
Vergnaud investigates the relations between
syntax and models of neural architecture developed in the context of visual and
motor systems, with particular view towards constituent structure and the
structure of LF.
CONCLUSION
The notion of a predicative line; simple
sentence as a monopredicative construction. Nominative division of the sentence
into syntactic and semantic constituents. The traditional classification of
notional parts (members of the sentence): principal (subject, predicate),
secondary (object, attribute, adverbial modifier), detached (apposition,
address, parenthesis, interjection). The notions of surface and deep
(conceptual) structures of the sentence; the classification of ‘semantic
cases’, or ‘semantic roles’ (“case grammar” theory of Ch. Fillmore). Parsing of
the sentence into its ‘immediate constituents’. Verb as the predicative centre
of the sentence. The notion of the “elementary” sentence. Expanded and
unexpanded simple sentences. The problem of sentence completeness: complete and
incomplete (elliptical) sentences. The two axes of the sentence; one-axis and
two-axis sentences, their correlation with complete and elliptical sentences.
Free and fixed one-axis sentences; their direct or indirect (‘vague’)
associations with two-axis sentences. Fixed one-axis sentence-representatives.
Semantic classification of simple sentences: personal (definite and indefinite)
and impersonal (factual and perceptional) sentences; process featuring (verbal
actional and verbal statal) and substance featuring (nominal factual and
nominal perceptional) sentences; subjective, objective and neutral
(“potentially” objective) sentences.
Thus,
the classification of the communicative sentence types, in addition to three
cardinal communicative types, includes six intermediary subtypes of sentences
of mixed communicative features; first, mixed sentence patterns of declaration
(interrogative-declarative, imperative-declarative), second, mixed sentence
patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative,
imperative-interrogative), and, third, mixed sentence patterns of inducement
(declarative-imperative, interrogative-imperative). Most of the intermediary
communicative types of sentences perform distinct stylistic functions, and can
be treated as cases of transposition of the communicative types of sentences
presented in oppositions, paradigmatically.
REFERENCES:
1.Иванова И.П. Последовательность времен
английского языка, ЛГУ, 1958, 329 стр.
2. Internet:http://www.en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Sequence_of_tenses
3.Merriam-Webster
“sequence of tenses”. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary of English Usage. Merriam-Webster, 1994, 383 p.
4.Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почебцов Г.Г.
«Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка» - Москва, 1981. 66
стр.
5.Lyda E. Lapalombara “An introduction to Grammar” –
Cambridge Massachusetts, 1976.
6.Internet:http://www.web.ku.edu/~edit/sequence.html
7.Internet:http://www.englishpractice.com/improve/sequence
of tenses
8.Internet;http;//www.usefulenglish.ru/.../ sequence
-of-tenses
9.Эпштейн
Г.А., Казанская Н.М. «Глагол. The Verb» -
Санкт-Петербург, 2001.
10.Вейхман Ф.А. English Grammar
“Новое о грамматике современного английского языка” – Москва, 2002.
11.Исмаил Н.М., Жумадиллаева О.А., Хамитова
Г.Д., Кулекенова Ж.Г. “The sequence of tenses. Indirect speech” – Almaty, 2002. - 53c.
12.Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого
предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966. - 200 с.
13.Борабаш Т.А. «Грамматика английского
языка. English». – Москва, 2001. 119 стр.
14.Blokh M.I. “A Course in Theoretical English
Grammar” – Mосква 2000.
15. Rysbaeva G.K. “English Grammar. Ағылшын тілі грамматикасы” – Алматы, 2009. 144
бет.
Оставьте свой комментарий
Авторизуйтесь, чтобы задавать вопросы.