The combination of an article with a noun is a word combinations

Recommended textbook solutions

Article
is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in
communicative collocations. Where as the function of the determiners
such as this, any, some, etc. Is to explicitly interpret the referent
of the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena, the semantic
purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, to denote
it in the most general way.

The
peculiarity of the article is that the use of the article with the
noun is quite obligatory. And this peculiar feature of the article
arises a problem as far as its segmental status in the system of
morphology. Namely, the problem is whether the article is a purely
auxiliary element of a special grammatical form of the noun which
functions as a component of a definite morphological category, or it
is a separate word, i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set.
The following arguments were put forward to support the theory of the
article as a separate unit.

Semantic
observation discloses three meaningful characterizations of the
nounal referent rendered by the definite, the indefinite and the
meaningful absence of the article.

1. The
   definite article expresses the identification or individualization
   of the referent of the noun. The use of this article shows that the
   object denoted is taken in its concrete, individual quality. This
   meaning is exposed by a substitution test which consists in
   replacing the article by a demonstrative word. Look
   at the apple-tree!
   —♦ Look
   at this apple-tree!

2. The
   indefinite article is commonly interpreted as referring the object
   denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects. The
   indefinite article expresses a classifying generalization of the
   nounal referent. This meaning is exposed by a substitution test
   which consists in insertions of classifying phrases. We
   passed a water-null. —* We passed a certain (a kind of) water-mill

3. Various
   uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view,
   should be divided, into two types: meaningful and not meaningful.
   Not meaningful absence of article takes place in the following
   cases. First, there are uses where the articles are deliberately
   omitted out of stylistic considerations. For instance, in
   telegraphic speech, in titles and headlines, in various notices.
   Telegram
   received room reserved for weekend (the telegram text).

In
such kind of cases the omitted articles can be easily restored: The

telegram
is received, a room is reserved for the weekend.

Second,
there are cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the
article in various combinations of fixed type:

• prepositional
  phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.);

• fixed
  verbal collocations (take place, make use, etc.);

• descriptive
  coordinate groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and

gun,
day by day, etc.).

The
meaningful non-uses of the article are not homogeneous.

First,
the meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in
the singular signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense.
This meaning is called “absolute generalization” and may be
demonstrated by inserting the following generalizing modifiers, such
as in general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense.

Law
(in general) begins with the beginning of human society.

Second,
the absence of the article before the uncountable noun corresponds to
the two kinds of generalization: both relative and absolute. To
decide which of the two meanings is realized in any particular case,
the described tests should be carried out alternately:

John
laughed with great bitterness (that sort of bitterness: relative
generalization).

Ritter
ness (in general: absolute generalization) is always harmful for your
health.

Third,
the absence of the article before the countable noun in the plural,
likewise, corresponds to both kinds of generalization.

Stars,
planets, comets (these kinds of objects: relative generalization) are
different celestial bodies.

Wars
(in general: absolute generalization) should be eliminated as means
of deciding international disputes.

Passing
to the situational estimation of the article uses, we must point out
that the basic principle of their differentiation is not a direct
consideration of their meanings, but concrete contextual conditions
of their usage. From this angle, the definite article serves as an
indicator of the nounal information which is presented as the “facts
already known”, or starting point of the communication (the theme).
In contrast to this, the indefinite article or the meaningful absence
of the article introduces the part rendering the immediate
informational data to be conveyed from the speaker to the listener
(the rheme).

In
accord with the said situational functions, the typical syntactic
position of the noun modified by the definite article is that of the
subject, while the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by
the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the article is
that of the predicative.

How
to handle the situation was a big question.

It
should be noted that in many other cases of syntactic use, i.e. non-
subjective or non-predicative, the articles reflect the same
situational functions.

1
am going to make a rather strange request (object) to you. —* What
I am going to make is a rather strange request (predicative) to you.

Another
essential contextual-situational characteristic of the articles is
their immediate connection with the two types of attributes to the
noun. The limiting attribute requires the definite article, while the
descriptive attribute requires the indefinite one.

She
was the person I have been looking for all my life. (A limiting
attribute)

She
was a person of strong will and iron self-control (A descriptive
attribute)

From
the point of view of the oppositional approach the category of
article determination may be represented by two levels. The
opposition of the higher level operates in the whole system of
articles. It contrasts the definite article against the indefinite
article and the meaningful absence of the article. In this opposition
the definite article should be interpreted as the strong member by
virtue of its identifying and individualising function, while the
other forms of article determination should be interpreted as the
weak member leaving the feature in question unspecified.

The
opposition of the lower level operates within the article subsystem
that forms the weak member of the upper opposition. This opposition
contrasts the two types of generalisation, namely the relative
generalisation distinguishing its strong member (the indefinite
article plus meaningful absence of article) and the absolute
generalisation distinguishing the weak member of the opposition (the
meaningful absence of the article).

The
best way of demonstrating the actual oppositional value of the
articles on the immediate textual material is to contrast them in
syntactically equivalent conditions in pairs.

The
train stopped (that train). — A train stopped (some train).

I
m afraid the oxygen is out (our supply of oxygen). Oxygen is
necessary for life (oxygen in general).

Be
careful, there is a puddle under your feet (a kind of puddle). — Be
careful, ihere is mud on the ground (as different from clean space).

New
information should be gathered on this subject (some information). —
Scientific information should be gathered systematically in all
fields of human knowledge (information in general).

Summarising
the data obtained we can state that the English noun distinguishes
also the category of determination expressed by the article paradigm
of three grammatical forms: the definite, the indefinite, the zero
(the meaningful absence of article). The paradigm is generalised for
the whole system of the common nouns, being transpositionaliy
outstretched into the system of proper nouns. The status of the
combination of the article with the noun should be defined as
basically analytical, being localised between the free syntactic
combination of words (bearing in mind the possibility of insertion)
and the combination of a grammatical affix with a notional stem.

Lecture
10 Peculiarities of the Adjective as a Part of Speech

The
adjective expresses the categorial semantics of property of a
substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes
relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such
as its material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other
characteristics both permanent and temporary. It follows from this
that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative
value.

Adjectives
are distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns, which they
modify, if not accompanied by adjuncts, usually in pre-position, and
occasionally in post-position; by a combinability with link-verbs,
both functional and notional; by a combinability with modifying
adverbs.

In
the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an attribute and
a predicative. Of the two, the more specific function of the
adjec­tive is that of an attribute, since the function of a
predicative can be performed by the noun as well.

To
the derivational features of adjectives belong a number of suffixes
and prefixes of which the most important are: -fu!
(hopeful), -less (flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous (famous), -ive
(decorative). -ic (basic); un- (unprecedented), in- (inaccurate),
pre- (premature).
Among the adjectival affixes should also be named the prefix a-,
constitutive for the stative subclass.

The
English adjective is distinguished by the hybrid category of
comparison. The ability of an adjective to form degrees of comparison
is usually taken as a formal sign of its qualitative character, in
opposition to a relative adjective which is understood as incapable
of forming degrees of comparison by definition. However, in actual
speech the described principle of distinction is not at all strictly
observed.

On
the one hand, adjectives can denote such qualities of substances
which are incompatible with the idea of degrees of comparison. Here
refer adjectives like extinct,
immobile, deaf, final, fixed,
etc.

On
the other hand, many adjectives considered under the heading of
relative still can form degrees of comparison, thereby, as it were,
transforming the denoted relative property of a substance into such
as can be graded quantitatively, e.g.: of
a military’ design — of a less military design — of a more military
design.

In
order to overcome the demonstrated lack of rigour in the
differentiation of qualitative and relative adjectives, we may
introduce an additional linguistic distinction which is more
adaptable to the chances of usage. The suggested distinction is based
on the evaluative function of adjectives. According as they actually
give some qualitative evaluation to the substance referent or only
point out its corresponding native property, all the adjective
functions may be grammatically divided into “evaluative” and
“specificative”. In particular, one and the same adjective,
irrespective of its being basically “relative” or “qualitative”,
can be used either in the evaluative function or in the specificative
function.

The
introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses
of adjectives, in the long run, emphasizes the fact that the
morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is
potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is
constitutive for it.

Fhe
category of adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative
characteristic of the quality of a nounal referent. The category is
constituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the
heading of degrees of comparison; the basic form (positive degree),
having no features of comparison; the comparative degree form, having
the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparison to
two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature
of unrestricted superiority.

Both
formally and semantically, the oppositional basis of the category of
comparison displays a binary nature. In terms of the three degrees of
comparison, at the upper level of presentation the superiority
degrees as the marked member of the opposition are contrasted against
the positive degree as its unmarked member. The superiority degrees,
in their turn, form the opposition of the lower level of
pres­entation, where the comparative degree features the
functionally weak member, and the superlative degree, respectively,
the strong member. The whole of the double oppositional unity,
considered from the semantic angle,^constitutes a gradual ternary
opposition.

The
analytical forms of comparison, as different from the synthetic
forms, are used to express emphasis, thus complementing the synthetic
forms in the sphere of this important stylistic connotation.
Analytical degrees of comparison are devoid of the feature of
«semantic idiomatism” characteristic of some other categorial
analytical forms, such as, e.g., the forms of the verbal perfect. For
this reason the analytical degrees of comparison invite some
linguists to call in question their claim to a categorial status in
English grammar.

Lecture
11

Pecuiiarities
of the Adverb as a Part of Speech

The
adverb is usually defined as a word expressing either property of an
action, or property of another property, or circumstances in which an
action occurs. This definition, though certainly informative and
instructive, fails to directly point out the relation between the
adverb and the adjective as the primary qualifying part of speech.

To
overcome this drawback, we should define the adverb as a notional
word expressing a non-substantive property, that is, a property of a
non-substantive referent. This formula immediately shows the actual
correlation between the adverb and the adjective, since the adjective
is a word expressing a substantive property.

In
accord with their categorial semantics adverbs are characterized by a
combinabiiity with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature.
The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing
different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs can also refer to whole
situations; in this function they are considered under the heading of
“situation-determinants”. In accord with their word-building
structure adverbs may be simple and derived.

The
typical adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are, first and
foremost, the basic and only productive adverbial suffix -ly
(slowly),
and then a couple of others of limited distribution, such as -ways
(sideways), -wise (clockwise), -ward(s) (homewards).
The characteristic adverbial prefix is a-
(away).
Among the adverbs there are also peculiar composite formations and
phrasal formations of prepositional, conjunctional and other types:
some
limes, at least, to andfro,
etc.

Adverbs
are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and
circumstantial. Qualitative adverbs express immediate, inherently
non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The typical
adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly.
E.g.: bitterly,
plainly.
The adverbs interpreted as «quantitative» include words of
degree. These are specific lexical units of semi­functional
nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of
qualities, e.g.: of high degree: very,
quite;
of excessive degree: too,
awfully,
of unexpected degree: surprisingly;
of moderate degree: relatively;
of low degree: a
little;
of approximate degree: almost;
of optimal degree: adequately;
of inadequate degree: unbearably;
of under-degree: hardly
Circumstantial adverbs are divided into functional and notional.

The
functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature.
Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs they include adverbs of
time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used
as syntactic connectives and question-forming functionals. Here
belong such words as now,
here, when, where, so, thus, how, why,
etc. As for circumstantial notional adverbs, they include adverbs of
time (today,
never, shortly)
and adverbs of place (homeward(s),
near, ashore).
The two varieties express a general idea of temporal and spa-cial
orientation and essentially perform deictic (indicative) functions in
the broader sense. On this ground they may be united under the
general heading of “orientative” adverbs.

Thus,
the whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and
pronominal, and the nominal adverbs will be subdivided into
qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative
adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter falling into temporal and
local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of more detailed
specifications.

As
is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subcategorization of
adverbs should be accompanied by a more functional and flexible
division into evaluative and specificative, connected with the
catego-rial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to
evaluational grading by degree words expresses the category of
comparison, much in the same way as adjectives do. Thus, not only
qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, proving they come under
the heading of evaluative, arc included into the categorial system of
comparison, e.g.: ashore
— more ashore — most ashore — less ashore
— least
ashore.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

Full name: Đặng Nguyễn Quỳnh Hương

Student code: 31201023284

Class: 21C1ENG51300371

PREPARE NEW LESSON

UNIT 4: ORGANISATION

I. STARTING UP

A. Discuss these questions.

1. Would you like to work in the building in the photo above?

Why? / Why not?

Yes, I’d like to work in a tall, modern and magnificent building.

2. Which people in your organisation have their own office? Do

they have their own office because of: a/ seniority; b/ a need for

confidentiality; c/ the type of work they do?

In my organisation, the President and the Vice President have

their own office because of their position.

B. How important are the following in showing a person’s status in an organisation? Give each

one a score from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).

• a reserved parking space 3

• an office with a view 5

• a uniform 3

• a personal business card 3

• a company car 4

• your name on your office door 3

• the latest company mobile phone 5

• an assistant 4

• taking holidays when you like 5

• the size of your desk 2

• more than one seat in your office 2

• flying business class 3

• a company credit card 4

• fixed working hours 3

II. VOCABULARY: COMPANY STRUCTURE

A. Match the words and phrases (1-8) to their definitions (a-h)

1e – subsidiary: a company which is at least half-owned by another company

2h — factory/plant: a large building or group of buildings where goods are made (using machinery)

3a — call centre: an of Ace where people answer questions and make sales over the phone

4d — service centre: a place where faulty products are mended

5f — headquarters: the main office or building of a company

6b — distribution centre: a building from which goods or supplies are sent to factories, shops or customers

7g — warehouse: a building for storing goods in large quantities

8c — outlet: a place through which products are sold