Сравнительный анализ порядка слов в вопросительных предложениях в английском и французском языках Comparative analysis of word order in interrogative

работа на английском языке ...

CONTENTS

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..3
PART I
THEORETIC BASIS OF STUDY OF INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES……………………...4
1.1. The notion of syntax. The basic unit of syntax……………………………………………….4
1.2. Semantic organization of a sentence………………………………………………………….6
1.3. Development and establishment of the word order in English and French sentences………..8
1.4. Interrogative sentences and their classification……………………………………………………………………………………..13
PART II
FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE FRENCH LANGUAGES………………………………………………….…..……17
2.1. The word order in English interrogative sentences…………………………………………………………………………………………17
2.2. The word order in the English interrogative sentences……………………………………...21
2.3. Comparative analysis of structure of the English and French interrogative sentences ……..24
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….....25
References………………………………………………………………………………………..26

The present work is devoted to studying the word order of interrogative sentences in English and French. Actuality of the theme research is primarily determined by the importance of the study of the grammatical structure of the language, as the understanding of the structure of language is one of the most important aspects of its study. The study of the grammatical structures of the two languages in a comparative manner is more important. Comparing grammatical system of two languages, a person learns to highlight their similarities and differences that promotes the best mastering in both languages. The consideration of interrogative sentences in the two languages is also of great interest, as the question is an important means to comprehend the truth, and the word order of the interrogativ e sentence is a way of language using this means in practice

Ranking the rest parts of the sentence was free.In Early New English, the syntactical significance of word order increases. At this time the consolidation of the direct order of words occurs in all communicative types of two-member sentences. The special role of word order as the main means of transmission of grammatical meaning is a sign of the analytical system, which allocates the English language among other Germanic languages [18].Although the direct word order in declarative sentences is the norm for Early Modern English, deviations from it is still quite significant.In general, the syntax of a simple sentence was already similar to the modern one. Its distinction was the optional usage of verb do in negative and interrogative sentences, as well as emphatic sentences with inversion(Not a syllable did she utter).In the System of Old English simple sentences, as in modern English, there were both two-member and one-member sentences. The main types of Old English two-part sentences may be presented in the form of models that include only obligatory members, i.e. those that create grammatical and semantic completeness of the sentence. Such models are three: SP (subject + predicate), SPO (subject + verb + object), SPS (Subject +verb-predicate + predicate part).  These three basic types of simple two-part sentences differ depending on the type of predicate verb and obligatory combinability [17].In addition to two-member sentences, in Old English there were two types of one-member sentences, which were based on finite form of verb, serving without a subject. These were impersonal and imperative sentences.Impersonal sentences usually begins with a object expressed by a pronoun or, more rarely, by a noun that means a person whose condition was described in a sentence: Nine byrste hwylum and hwylum higrode. - At times, he wanted to drink, and to eat.The Old English imperative sentences were based on verb in the imperative mood, and thus have two forms: singular and plural forms: Far to peare heorde.- Go (singular form) to the flock. Beod ze on saelum.- Be (plural form) happy [29].The main line of development of simple sentences is associated with the growth of analytical trends in English. The first step towards this development was the destruction of inflections, which had carried out mainly in the Middle English period. This morphological change immediately reflected in the syntax. The role of coordination and government as a means of transmission of syntactic relations was decreased significantly. The new ways of expression of syntactic relations (adjunction, word order, prepositional connection) came to the fore.In Old English, a sentence is characterized by a linear arrangement of parts of the sentence around one predicative axis, i.e. it is rarely complicated by the so-called complex parts of the sentence (predicative construction with impersonal forms of the verb). A feature of a sentence is also common pleonastic usage of sentence parts, i.e. the dual expression of the same sentence part with different morphological means.In Middle English, there remained so called usage of some verbs without subject (mainly existential verbs of type «happen» and «Occur» and verbs expressing mental processes, such as «seem» and «like»), although mostly impersonal sentences were constructed with using it.By the end of the Middle English period, pronoun man disappears and indefinite-personal sentences become constructions without subject, which persists until the appearance of indefinite personal pronoun one. In indefinite-personal sentences without subject the verb usually appears in the form of the passive voice.If in the Middle English period the main features of the future analytism of English sentences is only outlined, in the Early Modern English period, these features have been further developed and led to the establishment of a modern system of simple sentences. There is a strict fixation of word order, and the development of normative grammar leads to the establishment of rule of a single negation in the sentence [1].In Early Modern English period, there occur fundamental changes that led to the establishment of modern rules of a complex sentence constructing. The main changes are in three areas: the refinement of the conjunction means of connection, the development of firm regulations concerning the order of principal and subordinate clauses through the development of categories of correlation and time, as well as correlation of notional and modal verbs that supported to more interconnecting between parts of a complex sentence. This process is completed by the beginning of the XVIII century, when the construction of an English sentence obtains its modern form [4].Now we consider the process of establishing the word order in the French language. A. Doza outlined the following periodization of the history of the French language:1. Old French language (843-1345);2. Middle French (1345-1610);3. Classical Language (1610-1789);4. The modern period (1789-1930) [16, p. 467 – 468].L. Foulet identifies six types of sentences in Old French period: 1) SVO, 2) SOV, 3) OSV, 4) VSO, 5) VOS, 6) OVS [5, p. 37-40]. The third type (OSV), according to L. Foulet, is used only rarely in the Old French period and, thus, is a violation of the rules of syntax. The quite rare construction is the fifth type (VOS), although the L. Foulet relates it to the language norm [Ibidem, p. 37]. The rare use of construction VOS in the Old French period is also pointed by A. Doza because, as he says, a word order is contrary to the spirit of language [16, p. 341]. The fourth type (VSO) can be used for constructing an interrogative sentence, as in modern French. If the subject is expressed with personal pronoun, it may be omitted, and in this case, the structure is reduced to form VO.Speaking about the most common types except direct order (SOV, VSO, OVS), L. Foulet divides them into two classes. The first class includes sentences that are used in the principal clause: models VSO and OVS [25, p. 38: 242]. A. Doza refers to the Germanic origin of the order of OVS. This model is the abolition of the pronoun subject, in order to avoid confusion with the interrogative sentences. According to the author, in the Old French, this construction was extremely literary and is rarely found after the XIII century. According to him, Rabelais, with his characteristic archaized syntax, was the last writer which used this word order [Ibid].The second class includes constructions which were used preferably in subordinate clauses (the word order SOV may be referred to this class) [Ibid.]. Muller points out in the Old French period the subordinate clauses gradually refused this word order, taking over construction, typical for the principal clause, where the first element was increasingly subject [Ibid]. A. Doza again points to the Germanic origin of this type, referring to the fact that the vulgar Latin avoided such word order, which has been the rule for classical Latin [16, p. 346 – 349]. Prevost draws attention to the subject belonging to the certain part of speech. She indicates that the subject mainly takes the postposition, while pronominal subject is exposed to inversion much less frequently. In addition, the postposition after the verb groups is took by only nominal subjects [7, p. 10; 15].Russian researchers in the field of historical linguistics note that postposition of subject is obligatory in the case when a sentence begins with objects or circumstances [19, p. 4; 25, p. 191 – 192]. This is due to a closer connection between object or circumstance and the verb. This is due to a closer connection between objects or circumstances and the verb. At the same time, it is noted that the conjunctions and adverbs, similar in function to the conjunctions, did not cause the inversion (et, se, etc.). In addition, the inversion was observed in the parentheses, where its use is justified by the fact that at the beginning of such sentences the pronominal object ço (ce) was used [25, p. 191].Middle French period is considered as a transitional period in the history of the French language. XIV-XV centuries characterized by the development of direct word order [19, p. 5]. XVI century is a period of formation of the French literary language on a national basis. Type of prose of this period is characterized as «writing the conversation», where there is compartmentalization inherent in colloquial speech, lack of cohesion in the syntactic group, an abundance of Latin constructions. In addition, there is syntagmatic connection of parentheses with basic sentence and the presence of explicit indicators of this connection. During this period, the inversion of the main parts of the sentence is rare in comparison with the previous period. The characteristic features of the syntax of this period include: word order SVO, where O - direct object, expressed with the noun, and postposition of attributing word in relation to the attributed word. Inversion retained for transmission of affectivity or expression of closer connection between sentences related to each other by causal relations [Ibid, p. 16 – 20]. As A. Doza notes, in this period, the construction with a final position of the verb disappears from the language, but the starting position is a sign of an interrogative sentence. In addition, inversion of subject expressed by a pronoun is saved after some adverbs of time and manner [16, p. 348 – 350].In the classical period the direct order of words is becoming the norm. It is noted that the the parts of sentence syntactically related to each other could be disconnected by interposing subordinate clauses or parentheses and complex objects. In addition, the researchers point to the frequent use of inversion, especially after adverbs (or - however, seulement - only, bien - well) [25, p. 306 - 307]. The modern French language in general has a progressive order of words (i.e. from the dominant part of the sentence to the dependent one, unlike the regressive word order) with the structure of SVO. Exceptions are parentheses and sentences with some adverbial words (aussi - also, encore - yet, peut-être - may be, and so on), which, according to experts, is a vestigial phenomenon, dating back to the Old French language [Ibid, p. 191 – 192]. From the foregoing it can be concluded that the establishment of a direct order of words in English and French sentence took a very large amount of time. In English, the processes continued throughout the 10 centuries (approximately from 7 to 17 cc.). In French, this process took about 9 centuries (approximately from 9 to 18 cc.). 1.4. Interrogative sentences and their classificationIn modern linguistic paradigm there exists several classifications of sentences. Sentences are grouped in modern linguistics according to different parameters: firstly, from the viewpoint of grammatical structure, secondly, from the point of view of semantics transferred and, thirdly, from the point of view of communication tasks performed. Accordingly, the contrast between affirmative and negative sentences is based on relation of the utterance to reality. The basis of the opposition of "declarative, interrogative and imperative sentences" is a purpose of the utterance. The sentence structure gives, firstly, the opposition of simple and complex sentences, secondly, the differentiation between one-part and two-part sentences and, thirdly, the opposition of extended and unextended sentences, as well as complete and elliptical sentences [21, p. 16]. All these classifications of sentences take place both in the English and in the French languages.N.V. Gurova proposes to distinguish the concepts of question and interrogative sentence. As she said, the question is a communicative act of request for information, and interrogative sentence is a categorical linguistic form of expression question. In other words, interrogative sentence is a special linguistic structure created for the expression (materialization) the question as a special form of thinking and communication [14, p. 8].In the speech act theory the question is considered as a speech act which contains the smallest threat to the status of the owner of speech, as the questioner becomes an asker, admitting his ignorance, incompetence [8, p. 90]. Condition for the successful question as a speech act are: 1) it is assumed that the speaker does not know the answer; 2) He wants to know the answer; 3) The addressee knows the answer; 4) He is willing to share his knowledge with the speaker.The formal characteristics of an interrogative sentence that distinguish it from other types of sentences are: intonation (rising tone), word order (direct or inverted), the presence of question words, graphic marker (interrogation point) [30, p. 51].T.N. Golitsyna carries in her study epistemological classification of interrogative sentences. Epistemology is the direction of intellectual human activity, investigating features of cognitive activity. Particular attention of the epistemology is paid to the phenomena that result to acquire knowledge, to obtain new information. According to R. Conrad, situation of question takes place when «there is the conscious state of ignorance» [12, p. 349]. Depending on the informational degree of knowledge / ignorance T.N. Golitsyna highlights the following types of interrogative sentences:1) Identifying questions that the speaker asks when he can not call the observed object or phenomenon;2) Interrogative sentences of temporal orientation;3) Predicting interrogative sentences, which contain a message in addition to question [13].The classification of interrogative sentences proposed by D. Sperber and D. Wilson, is based on the understanding of question as a form of indirect speech act. Scholars have identified the following functional types of questions:1) Rhetorical questions (questions that do not require answers): Do you want to give up smoking?2) Exam questions (questions that have purpose to test addressee’s knowledge in any field): What are the constituencies of a solar panel?3) Guess questions: Which hand is it in?4) Expository questions: How are non-declarative sentences understood?5) Surprise-questions: The President is resigned. Has he?6) Self-addressed questions: Now why did I say that?7) Speculative questions: What is the best analysis of interrogative sentences?8) Echoic questions: John sighed Would she never speak? [28, p. 151]L.G. Friedman proposes the following classification of interrogative sentences:1) Proper interrogative sentences;2) Confirmatory interrogative sentences;3) Formally interrogative sentences.The main purpose of proper interrogative sentences is a request for an unknown information. The appointment of confirmatory interrogative sentence is to check the correctness of the speaker’s assumption about the expected response. Formallly interrogative sentences are interrogative only in their structure. They do not have any purpose of asking question. Formally interrogative sentences are rhetorical questions, as well as interrodative-imperative sentences [33, p. 4]. Thus, the classification of L.G. Friedman is based on the allocation of the communicative intentions of the speaker in interrogative sentences.According to their syntactical structure interrogative sentences in English and French are divided into two groups:1) Sentences with direct word order;2) Sentences with inversion of the principal terms, but with a question word at the beginning [27, p. 5].On the basis of various classifications A.A. Streltsov offers the following typology of interrogative sentences:I. According to the nature of the expected response:1. Proper interrogative sentences:a) open (so-called special questions requiring full and complete response);b) closed or dichotomous (this includes general questions, that is, the questions that require only to confirm or to disprove any fact);c) Alternative questions. This type of question can be considered as closed, but there are also alternative questions, in which the variants of answer is absent, but it is understood from the context.2. Interrogative-affirmative sentences:a) guiding questions;b) rhetorical questions;3. Interrogative-imperative sentences:a) a polite or hidden request (question-hint);b) promise in the form of question.II. According to the spheres of application:1. Publicistic and literary discourse: repeated question, a counter question, a rhetorical question;2. Scientific and educational discourse: exploratory, hypothetical, philosophical questions, a rhetorical question (to which the scientist himself gives the answer).III. According to the form of sentence:1. Complete and elliptical sentences;2. Positive and negative;3. Direct and indirect questions [30, p. 55].Thus, from the foregoing it can be concluded that the interrogative sentences are the object of study of various areas and branches of linguistics. This circumstance is the ground for a variety of points of view on their classification.Part II FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTIONS OF INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE FRENCH LANGUAGES2.1. The word order in English interrogative sentencesThe analysis order of words in the French interrogative sentences was carried out on the basis of examples taken from the novel of the famous French writer of the second half of the 19th centuries, Guy de Maupassant. The selection of examples was performed by method of continuous sampling. We analyzed more than 500 interrogative sentences. All examples of interrogative sentences can be divided into two groups:1) Interrogative sentences with direct word order2) Interrogative sentences with reverse, inverted word order.French sentence with direct word order is made by the formula:S + V + Owhere S is the subject, V is the verb-predicate, O is direct or indirect object.In French literary text there can often be found interrogative sentences, grammatical structure of which is the same as in declarative sentences. In such cases, the question is transmitted intonationally. For example:Vous connaissez l’Algérie, monsieur ? [5, p. 40]Il faudra me revoir ça, Forestier ? [5, p. 75]C’est votre nom, Saint-Potin ? [5, p. 90]Madame va bien ? [5, p. 121]Vous regardez mes tableaux ? [5, p. 181]Such sentences are most often markers of the French colloquial speech, and in a literary text such sentences act as replicas of dialogue. The intonational method for constructing an interrogative sentence in the novel «Bel ami» by Guy de Maupassant is quite often. 11% of the sentences from our sample are constructed in this way.The direct word order is typical for sentences, where the question is set to the subject. In this case, interrogative pronouns qui and combien, as well as interrogative adjective quel(le) serve as an interrogative words are. Quelle était cette dame qui souriait ? [5, p. 32]Quelle est cette personne ? [5, p. 185]Combien faut-il laisser aux garçons ? [5, p. 118]Qui va le remplacer ? [5, p. 172]Interrogative sentences built on the model of the question to the subject are also common in the literary work investigated by us. Their number is about 10% of the total number of interrogative sentences in the novel «Bel ami».A characteristic feature of the construction of interrogative sentences in the French language is the use of the interrogative construction est-ce que, after which the order of words in interrogative sentence is always direct. The construction est-ce que represents inversion of the predicative groupe C'est que. The construction est-ce que may be used not only to constructing a general question, but also for constructing of questions to the subject, to the direct object, etc. As a rule, interrogative sentences with a construction est-ce que are used in colloquial speech. In our sample, the proportion of such sentences examples is only 3%.