Taking into account the differences in semantics of complicating element, one can distinguish several types of active- verbal complication (we shall call them according to the content of complicating element):

1. Modal characteristics of connection of action with the subject

The predicates of this type include modal verbs (can, may, mast and so on) or verb with modal meaning (for example, to be, to have) as complicating element plus infinitive:

'Не can swim like a fish.' (D. Lessing)- U huddi baliqqa o'hshab suzadi

'He must come back.1 (D. C. Doyle)- U qaytib kelishi kerak

'It has to be right.' (H. E. Bates)- Bu narsa to'g'ri bo'lishi kerak.

2. Aspectual characteristics of action

Complicating element designates the stage of the development of action (the beginning, the continuation, the end), its regularity: to begin, to proceed, to quit, to keep on and so on:

She started to walk along the shingle.1 (I. Murdoch)- U dengiz yoqalab yurishni boshladi.

'His heart stopped beating.' (J. Galsworthy)- Uning yuragi urishdan to'htadi.

3. Probability of action

The number of verbs with the meaning of probability, outward appearance of action is very limited (to seem, to appear). For example:

'He seemed to have lost all power of will ' (S. Maugham) U o'zidagi kuchni butunlay yo'qotganga uhshardi.

'They didn't appear to be тоving.' (I. Murdoch)- Ular harakat qilmaydiganga uhshardilar.

4. Expectancy of action

As a result of assigning the appropriate element of complicating the action, designated by the main semantic element of the predicate to the structure of the predicate, it is imagined as accidental, but normally not expected and that's why unexpected or on the contrary as expected, as natural feature of the object. The complicating element is the verbs like to happen and to prove. For example:

But my memory happened to have tricked me.' (C. P. Snow)- Lekin mening hotiram menga pand berdi.

'It turned out to be Sam.' (P. Abrahams)- U Sem bo'lib chiqdi.

5. Attitude of the subject to the action

Complicating elements of the predicate denote desire/ unwillingness, intention (to want, to wish, to intend and so on)

I dоn't wish to leave my mother.' (O. Wilde) Onamni tashlab ketishni istamayman.

I should hate to hurt him,' she said.' (I. Murdoch)- Men unga yomonlik qilishdan hazar qilaman.

For the hybrid, verbal-nominal, nature of the infinitive stipulates the possibility of its use, among other nominal functions, and in the function of the object, and the verbs like to want can be directly-transitive single-objective, the necessity to substantiate the given above interpretation of the word combinations like «to want/to wish + infinitive» as a complex predicate but not as the combination of the verb-predicate with the object.

Consideration of to write (in want to write) as an object cannot be excluded as something wrong. Such kind of interpretation of the functions of the infinitive is principally possible. In scientific analyses of phenomena of the language different interpretations of one and the same phenomena are possible and even appropriate. Divergence of this kind is explained by the difference of initial theoretical reference, the fact of depicting the language in the context of different systems, possibility of different procedures of analyses and methods of depicting the phenomena. Diversity of approaches will allow to study and reflect its properties in scientific transformations fully and in details. “There is not and there will not be a single “correct” description of English language”, wrote G. Sledd. Possibility of various approaches makes unanimity of methods especially urgent within the frameworks of chosen system of description. Eclecticism of the methods and hence, the criteria gives distorted picture of the structure of the language as a result, in which existing in reality distribution of the phenomena in its systems is destroyed

Such kind of displacement of the phenomenon from the system, it belongs to by its nature, into the system, alien to it, is intrinsic to the interpretation of the word combinations like (I) want/wish to write as the combination verb-predicate with the object in those systems of describing grammatical structure of English language, in which the formations like (I) сап write and so on are considered as a predicate. Such kind of understanding is generally accepted and does not require any proof. Predicative status of can write is determined by the fact of correlation of action, expressed by the infinitive with the subject, by their subjective- process relations. This tie is set through the verb in infinite form.

The role of the verb in infinite form is not added up to the expression of grammatical meanings and relations. Can and other complicating elements are also the bearers of corporeal meaning. This kind feature is typical to the verb to want. The difference between сап in (I) can write and want in (I) want to write lies in the field of content and in the belonging of appropriate meanings to various semantic spheres. But syntactically the roles of these verbs are the same.

In the realization of the verb (I) want to write and (I) want a book there are two different meanings, connected with the differences of syntactical encirclement. Orientation to the object is intrinsic to the verb want in (I) want a book, having objective character, and verbal orientation of want in (I) want to write. This difference is clearly manifested, if to contrast the verb want (a book) to the other verb, semantically close to it.

Comp.:

'They burned to tell everybody, to describe, to -- well -- to boast their doll's house before the school bell rang.' (K. Mansfield).- Ular darsga qo'ng'iroq chalinishdan avval o'zlarining qo'g'irchoq uylari haqida hammaga to'g'rirog' uni tasvirlab berishga sabrilari chidamsdi.

It is unlikely that someone will maintain the fact of presence of, in this case (burn to tell) the verb and the object. Want to tell is different from burn to tell only lexically, in particular, by the degree of intensity of expressing feature. But syntactically, i.e. according to the character of interrelations of verbs and the character of their connections with the subject , want to tell and burn to tell are identical.

6. Reality of the action

A number of complicating elements deny (to feign, to pretend, to fail) or affirm (to manage, to contrive) the reality of the action, denoted by the infinitive that follows such verb: 'Andrew affected to read the slip.' (A. J. Cronin) 'She managed to conceal her distress from Felicity.' (I. Murdoch)

7. The implementation of the action

Such verbs as to try, to attempt, to endeavour, and so on ('Не tried to formulate.' (W. Golding) 'I have sought, primarily, indeed to emphasise how much is involved in 'knowing' a language, [...]' (R. Quirk), have that general component of meaning, which can be marked as “the possibility of implementation of the action”. The reality of actions that they introduce can be positive and negative: I tried to formulate can be equally applied to both the situation I formulated and to the situation I did not formulate. Here is the difference from the complicating elements, considered in (6) where each element allows only monosemantic interpretation and accordingly the transformation of the sentence: `I pretended to fall over.' (W. Golding) > I did not fall over, 'She managed to conceal her distress from Felicity.' (I. Murdoch) > She concealed her distress from Felicity.

8. Positional characteristics of the action.

Original type of complication is adding the verbs, denoting state or movement of the subject in the space to the predicate group (to sit, to stand, to lie, to go). The main element has the form of participle. For example:

'Tim stood fumbling for his keys.' (I. Murdoch) 'Adиle came running up again.' (C. Brontл) The first complicating element is weakened in its lexical meaning. Its well-known desemantization is especially vivid in the cases of displacement of the verbs in the group of predicate, which are normally incompatible. 'Oh-h! Just imagine being able to go walking and swiттing again.' (D. Cusack)

Complicated predicate of the considered type has a homonym in the structure of the language as the combination of the verb- predicate with the participle of present tense in the function of modifier of manner. The difference of the constructions is signaled by super-segment means, and especially by the type of joint between infinite form of the verb and participle, comp.: 'She stood touching her face anxiously.' (D. Lessing) and 'Ma stood, looking up and down.' (K. Mansfield)

Another distinctive moment is incapability of the complicating element (due to weakening its lexical semantics) to be modified by adverbials. At the same time the presence of modifying words is normal for meaningful independent verb. Comp.: `I sat looking at the carpet.' (I. Murdoch) и She sat for some time in her bedroom, thinking hard. (I. Murdoch)

One can suppose that for the bearer of the language the second component in complex predicate is semantically central, i.e. in the sentence Не stood fumbling for his keys the main information is -- He fumbled for his keys, not Не stood.

Within the limits of single predicate the combination of several complicating elements is possible. Such kind of complication can be called as consistent one:

I shall have to begin to practice' (K. Mansfield)

In away I had been hatched there, feathered there, and wanted dearly tо

gо on growing there.' (A. E. Coppard)

I can't begin to accept that as a basis for a decision.' (C. P. Snow)

Detail study of combinatory of consistent active-verbal complication will allow to set undoubtedly existing structural regularity in this field. They are revealed particularly in a number of limitations of the combinability of complicating elements. Thus, due to the absence of infinite forms of modal verbs, they cannot be placed after any of the complicating element, they can only begin the line. In non-initial position the appropriate meanings can be transformed with the equivalents of the modal verbs: 'We тight havе to wait/ I said. (C. P. Snow) In other cases combinability is less real according to semantic motives for example: affect to chance or *begin to happen (happen как as a complicating element with the meaning of expectancy of the action). In forecasting semantically impossible constructions it is important to have maximal caution, taking into account the intuition of the bearer of the language, because regularity of the combinability of meanings in most cases ideo-ethnical; compare such constructions, as 'At that moment I соиldn't seem to remember the story, [...]' (T. Capote) 'Poor Tom used to have to prescribe for my father.' (C. P. Snow) and so on. The number of complicating elements in consistent complication is usually limited to two. On the whole consistent complication has not been thoroughly studied yet.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8