Download сборник статей международной научной конференции

ЕРЕВАНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
-СТУДЕНЧЕСКОЕ НАУЧНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО
СБОРНИК СТАТЕЙ
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЙ НАУЧНОЙ
КОНФЕРЕНЦИИ,
ПОСВЯЩЕННОЙ 500-ЛЕТИЮ
АРМЯНСКОГО КНИГОПЕЧАТАНИЯ И
65-ЛЕТИЮ ОСНОВАНИЯ СНО ЕГУ
2
Гуманитарные науки
(Филология, педагогика)
ЕРЕВАН
ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО ЕГУ
2013
2
ºðºì²ÜÆ äºî²Î²Ü вزÈê²ð²Ü
àôê²ÜàÔ²Î²Ü ¶Æî²Î²Ü ÀÜκðàôÂÚàôÜ
Ð²Ú ¶ð²îäàôÂÚ²Ü 500-²ØÚ²ÎÆÜ
ºì ºäÐ àô¶À ÐÆØܲ¸ðزÜ
65-²ØÚ²ÎÆÜ ÜìÆðì²Ì
ØÆæ²¼¶²ÚÆÜ ¶Æî²ÄàÔàìÆ
Ðà¸ì²ÌܺðÆ ÄàÔàì²Ìàô
2
гë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ
(´³Ý³ëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ, Ù³Ýϳí³ñÅáõÃÛáõÝ)
ºðºì²Ü
ºäÐ Ðð²î²ð²ÎâàôÂÚàôÜ
2013
3
Ðî¸ 30
¶Ø¸ 60
Ð 240
Ðñ³ï³ñ³ÏíáõÙ ¿
ºäÐ ·Çï³Ï³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç áñáßٳٵ
Издается по решению Ученого совета ЕГУ
ÄáÕáí³ÍáõÝ ïå³·ñíáõÙ ¿
г۳ëï³ÝÇ »ñÇï³ë³ñ¹³Ï³Ý ÑÇÙݳ¹ñ³ÙÇ
³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ùµ
ÊÙµ³·ñ³Ï³Ý ËáñÑáõñ¹`
µ. ·. ¹., åñáý. Ü. гñáõÃÛáõÝÛ³Ý
µ. ·. ¹., åñáý. ê. Øáõñ³¹Û³Ý
µ. ·. ¹., åñáý. º. ºñ½ÝÏÛ³Ý
µ. ·. ¹., ¹áó. Ü. гñáõÃÛáõÝÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. Ü. ¸Çɵ³ñÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. è. Ø»ÉÇùë»ÃÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. ². Øáõñ³¹Û³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. È. гÏáµÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ³ëÇëï. ¼. ì³ñ¹³å»ïÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ³ëÇëï. Æ. ´áõéݳ½Û³Ý
Ù. ·. Ã., ¹áó. ¶. ´³µ³Û³Ý
Редакционная коллегия`
д. ф. н., проф. Н. Арутюнян
д. ф. н., проф. С. Мурадян
д. ф. н., проф. Е. Ерзнкян
д. ф. н., доц. Н. Арутюнян
к. ф. н., доц. Н. Дилбарян
к. ф. н., доц. Р. Меликсетян
к. ф. н., доц. А. Мурадян
к. ф. н., доц. Л. Акобян
к. ф. н., асист. З. Вардапетян
к. ф. н., асист. И. Бурназян
к. п. н., доц. Г. Бабаян
Ð 240
Ð³Û ·ñ³ïåáõÃÛ³Ý 500-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ ¨ ºäÐ àô¶À ÑÇÙݳ¹ñÙ³Ý 65-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ
ÝíÇñí³Í ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ·Çï³ÅáÕáíÇ Ñá¹í³ÍÝ»ñÇ ÅáÕáí³Íáõ: гïáñ 2: гë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ. µ³Ý³ëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ ¨ Ù³Ýϳí³ñÅáõÃÛáõÝ / ºäÐ,
àõë³ÝáÕ³Ï³Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝ; ÊÙµ. ËáñÑáõñ¹.- ºñ.£ ºäÐ, 2013. - 308
¿ç£
Сборник статей международной научной конференции, посвященной 500-летию
армянского книгопечатания и 65-летию основания СНО ЕГУ. Том 2. Гуманитарные
науки: филология и педагогика. – Ереван. Изд. ЕГУ, 2013. - 308 с.
Ðî¸ 30
¶Ø¸ 60
ISBN 978-5-8084-1748-9
¡ лÕÇݳϳÛÇÝ ËáõÙµ, 2013
¡ ºäÐ àõë³ÝáÕ³Ï³Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝ, 2013
¡ ºäÐ Ññ³ï³ñ³ÏãáõÃÛáõÝ, 2013
4
Larisa Aslanyan
Yerevan State Linguistic University after V. Brusov,
Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Information and Communication Technologies, MA
Supervisor: R. Khachatryan, Head of Chair on Education Management and Planning, Ph. D
E-mail: larisa. [email protected]
LEXICAL CAUSATIVES IN MODEN ENGLISH
Linguistic means of describing the reality can sometimes be very simple as compared to
the actions themselves. While such complex phenomenon as causation can be expressed
through only one verb, the investigation of the semantic and syntactic relations within that verb
exceeds the limits of simplicity and shapes the verb class called causatives. Causatives are
linguistic means of expressing causation, i. e. an imposition. In Modern English causation is
expressed by a big class of causatives, which are divided into three categories: morphological,
syntactic, and lexical causatives. First two types of causatives are formed with the help of
affixes and auxiliary verbs respectively, syntactically dividing the expression of cause and
result. Lexical causatives are underived and express cause and result simultaneously.
The entire notion of causation consists of three obligatory components: the causative verb,
the causer, and the causee. Lexical causative verbs unite the meanings of cause and result. Killverbs form a subcategory of lexical causatives that denote killing.
The majority of actions are interconnected and interdependent. One event can usually be a
cause for another one. This phenomenon is called causation. Some actions not only execute the
meaning they denote, but initiate a single or series of further actions as well. So, causation is
“some relation of determination between two events, with a prior event resulting in or giving
rise to a subsequent event”1.
The aim of this article is to particularly focus on the study of lexical causatives from the
viewpoint of surface-syntactic and deep-semantic structures. The causativity of lexical
causatives is embedded in their semantics. These causatives differ from other subgroups in
aspects like agentivity, directness/indirectness, and causative alternations. Moreover, they
constitute a big variety of synonyms and allow substitution. Transitivity of causatives is crucial
for denoting imposition, but some intransitive verbs possess the ability to adjust in transitive
causative constructions. In this regard, lexical causatives demonstrate flexibility by
incorporating ergative verbs into the group.
The article specifically targets Kill-verbs and introduces the classifications done by Levin
(1993) and Lemmens (1998). Furthermore, the article provides a new model of classification
based on the expression of the nuclear meaning to cause to die and additional features denoted
by Kill-verbs. Options for cross-classification within a category are discussed. Verbs with most
frequent occurrences in speech, i. e. to kill, to murder, to assassinate, to execute, to lynch, and
to massacre are studied.
Levin and Lemmens have introduced classifications of Kill-verbs to better conceptualize
their semantic characteristics. To start with, Levin presents two categories of Kill-verbs:
murder and poison verbs. Her main criterion for such classification is embedded in the way of
killing. In the Murder category, verbs express intentional killing but “none provides any
information about how the killing came about”2, while in case of the poison verb category the
1
Frawley W., Linguistic Semantics, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum associates, 1992, p. 158.
Levin B., Comrie E., Polinsky M. (Eds), More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations.
Causatives and Transitivity, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1993, p. 230-231.
2
229
means of killing is embedded in the semantic meaning of the verb, i. e. they are “verbs which
relate to actions which can be ways of killing”1.
Murder verbs - kill, murder, assassinate, eliminate, execute, liquidate, massacre, lynch,
butcher, dispatch, slaughter, immolate, slay
Poison verbs - asphyxiate, crucify, drown, electrocute, hang, knife, shoot, stab, suffocate,
strangle, garrotte
Lemmens (1998) criticizes Levin’s classification, particularly the category of Poison
verbs, pointing out to the heterogeneity of the group and suggesting re-classification by
emphasizing the semantics of the verbs, which have been ignored by Levin. Lemmens also
criticizes Levin’s cross classification to highlight the Suffocate verbs2. Instead, Lemmens
presents his own classification model with six categories.
Murder verbs - lynch, butcher, kill, slaughter, execute, slay, massacre, murder,
assassinate
Suffocate verbs - throttle, suffocate, strangle, stifle, asphyxiate, choke, smother, drown
Starve verbs - starve, famish
Instrument verbs - knife, garrotte, poison, crucify
Action verbs - stab, shoot, hang
Decapitate verbs - decapitate, behead
Although both Levin and Lemmens elaborate on the idea of general definition (“to cause
to die”), they do not reflect on it as a nuclear criterion for classification. Taking into account
the past records of Kill-verb classifications, this article suggests a new model, based on the
nuclear and regular features of the verbs. The main criterion is the nuclear meaning “to cause
to die” and the presence of additional features in definitions in Oxford English Dictionary.
Nuclear meaning (to cause to die)
kill, murder
Regular features
Instr. features
(medium)
Garrotte, stab,
shoot,
hang,
knife,
poison, crucify,
drown
Motiv.
features
(stimulus)
Assassinate,
martyr,
execute,
lynch
Manner features
Slay, slaughter, famish, starve,
behead, decapitate, throttle,
suffocate,
strangle,
stifle,
asphyxiate, liquidate, choke,
smother, butcher, massacre
Features on
Periphery
Eliminate,
annihilate,
dispatch,
eradicate,
exterminate
extinguish
The verbs included in the top category (directly related to the nuclear meaning) are to kill
(cause the death of a person or other living thing) and to murder (the unlawful premeditated
killing of one human being by another). They denote the nuclear meaning to cause to die with
no explicit information on the instrument, motivation or manner.
The category of regular features, which contains different connotations, is presented
below. Due to the big number of Kill-verbs, the most convenient method of classification is to
categorize them according to the instrument (if the instrument of killing is mentioned in the
definition), motivation (special reasons for killing are mentioned), and the manner (the special
way of killing is mentioned).
The first subcategory, the instrument features, includes the verbs garrotte (to kill by
strangulation, especially with a length of wire or cord), stab (thrust a knife or other pointed
1
Ibid, p. 232.
Lemmens M., Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: causative constructions in English,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 1998, p. 56.
2
230
weapon into someone so as to kill), shoot (kill a person or animal with a bullet or arrow), hang
(to kill someone by tying a rope attached from above around their neck), knife (to stab someone
with a knife), poison (to administer poison to a person or animal), and crucify (to put someone
to death by nailing or binding them to a cross). Each of these verbs performs the act of killing
by using certain medium, i. e. a wire, a pointed weapon, a bullet/an arrow, a rope, a knife,
poison, and a cross correspondingly. The mentioned verbs carry the nuclear meaning to cause
to die.
The verbs in motivation features category denote the motive of the killing as well. The
verbs of this subcategory are the following: assassinate (to murder an important person for
political or religious reasons), martyr (to kill someone because of their beliefs), execute (to
carry out a sentence of death), and lynch (to kill someone for an alleged offence). The usage of
these verbs is limited only to people with certain statuses. These verbs define killings of people
who stand out with their reputation, faith, crime history, and so on. They strictly depend on the
context and require the presence of one of the features discussed above. However, their nuclear
meaning is still denoted.
The third subcategory, the manner features is by far the largest and incorporates different
manners of killing. Despite the uniting criterion of manner, the components of this subcategory
can be cross-classified on the basis of similar definitions. For example, there are verbs that
denote killing in a violent way: slay, slaughter, butcher, liquidate, and massacre. Other verbs
denote killing by imposing deficiency of vital needs: suffocate, strangle, stifle, asphyxiate,
throttle, choke, smother, drown (lack of air), starve, famish (lack of food), behead, and
decapitate (absence of a vital organ).
Finally, a killing can also be expressed by verbs with features on periphery, i. e. eliminate
(completely remove or get rid of something), dispatch (deal with an opponent quickly and
efficiently), annihilate, eradicate, exterminate, and extinguish (the last four possess the
definition of “to destroy”). These verbs are usually used in formal speech as a euphemistic way
of denoting killing.
To Kill - The definition of to kill in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
(LDOCE) states: “to make a person or animal die. ” It is also not considered to be a
prototypical causative because of its flexibility.
1. And therefore, in recounting the numbers of those who have been killed in battle, I
cannot but think you have said the thing which was not. (Swift: Gulliver’s Travels)
In Example 1, battles usually include various killing instruments like guns, bombs, etc.
Together with corresponding arguments it can express the meanings of other Kill-verbs, while
the latter Kill-verbs cannot exceed the limits of their meaning specifics and substitute each.
First of all, to kill expresses an action, but does not specify the means. The counterpart, anticausative of to kill is to die (the analytical form is to cause to die). While to cause to die allows
spatial and temporal distance between the cause and the effect, to kill usually bounds its cause
and effect stronger.
To murder - The definition of this verb is “to kill someone deliberately and illegally”
(LDOCE). The Agent is semantically embedded in the meaning of this verb. To murder is
never initiated by a Force. The Agents of murdering must be entities possessing either animate
or human-like attributes. The role of human-like Agents can be played by companies,
governments, etc1. Secondly, the action denoted by this verb is almost always intentional.
2. I would have you call things by their right names. You say I murdered Peter Carey, I
say I KILLED Peter Carey... for I knew that it was him or me. (Doyle: Sherlock Holmes: the
Valley of Fear)
1
Ibid, p. 107.
231
In example 2 the speaker distinguishes between to murder and to kill, because he wants to
emphasize that he did not kill the victim deliberately, did not want to commit crime, moreover,
did not have any reasons for it. The reason he killed him was self-defense.
To assassinate - The indicators of intention and planning are stronger than in the verbs
mentioned above. To assassinate means “to kill an important person” (LDOCE). In essence,
the instigator of this action is necessarily an Agent, and the Patient of the action is always a
political or social persona. Lemmens also points out the motivational background. If the
motivation behind to kill and to murder can be a personal reason, like hatred or jealousy, the
activities of the victim usually stand as a motivation for the assassinator1.
3. The man who assassinated John Kennedy was killed before he could take the
punishment.
It can also be observed that assassination mostly includes intermediary and immediate
causer. The process is carried out in two stages. A criminal is identified, order is given out and
the killing is planned by the actual organizers, i. e. intermediate causers. Only then the act of
killing is realized by the killer, the immediate causer.
To execute – The definition of this verb is “to kill someone, especially legally as a
punishment” (LDOCE). As a member of murder verb category, the coloring of this verb
incorporates both meanings: it surely denotes killing, but in an organized, official manner. It
certainly possesses high level of intention and organization. It is also supposed that the
criminal went through a number of trials before he was sentenced to execution, i. e. the judge,
the witnesses, and the lawyers can be considered the indirect instigators of the action.
4. People assembled in the room to witness how the terrorist was executed.
To lynch - The LDOCE gives the following definition for to lynch “if a crowd of people
lynches someone, they kill him, especially by hanging them, without using the usual hanging
process. ” In this sense, to lynch is the exact opposite of to execute. In fact, if the latter
expresses killing through legal means and procedures, the former is a result of a completely
informal initiation. In fact, it can be described as intentional or unintentional.
5. They lynched Jesus Christ on a cross that would stand as a symbol of Christianity for
centuries.
In Example 5 the killing is demanded by a crowd, with no legal bases. Agents of the
action are usually filled with emotions, i. e. anger and rage, which are the true moving force.
On the contrary, execution is usually done in an organized procedure, lynching is usually not
organized. From the point of view of agentivity, this verb always requires Agents, and not
Force. To conclude, to lynch is not used in speech frequently, and mostly finds its place in
metaphorical language2.
To massacre - The official definition of this verb is “to kill a lot of people or animals in a
violent way, especially when they cannot defend themselves” (LDOCE). As it can be deduced
from the definition, the Patient of this action is expressed by the plural form of nouns which
semantically embed plurality.
6. The king massacred pagans for their faith in old gods.
To summarize, different studies of English causatives provide classifications of Kill-verbs,
namely those of Levin and Lemmens. However, Levin’s classification is too limited for such a
complex process as causation. Lemmens modifies this in his own classification, but again
avoids the nuclear meaning of all those verbs as a core criterion. The new classification
proposed in this article is to establish the nuclear meaning “to cause to die” as an axis of
classification. The classification includes the verbs with the same nuclear meaning and
emphasizes their additional features at the same time. To clarify, verbs like to eliminate are
strongly dependable on the context and formal/informal style of the speech. In informal speech
1
2
Ibid, p. 108-109
Ibid, p. 111.
232
to eliminate might not have the meaning of “to cause to die, ” while in formal speech the verb
is a euphemism for other Kill-verbs, i. e. to kill, to murder.
Causative verbs already possess structured classifications and capabilities. Causatives
have been classified according to their meanings and additional features, like the instrument
used, etc. However, these verbs, especially lexical causatives, can serve as a new ground for
further investigations and research. Causatives constitute an undiscovered domain, which has
the potential to reveal new findings about structures and usage of languages.
ȳñÇë³ ²ëɳÝÛ³Ý
´²è²ÚÆÜ ä²îÖ²è²Î²Ü ´²ÚºðÀ IJزܲβÎÆò ²Ü¶ÈºðºÜàôØ
Ðá¹í³ÍÁ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ ¿ ųٳݳϳÏÇó ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ å³ï׳é³Ï³Ý µ³Û»ñÇ ÁݹѳÝáõñ µÝáõó·ÇñÁ ¨, Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ë, Ï»ÝïñáݳÝáõÙ ¿ ¹ñ³Ýó »ÝóËÙµÇ` µ³é³ÛÇÝ å³ï׳é³Ï³Ý µ³Û»ñÇ ËÙµÇ íñ³: øÝݳñÏíáõÙ »Ý ëå³Ý»É-µ³Û»ñÇ áÉáñïáõÙ ³ñí³Í ¹³ë³Ï³ñ·áõÙÝ»ñÁ, ѳïϳå»ë, ȨÇÝÇ (1993) ¨ ȻٻÝëÇ (1998) ϳï³ñ³Í áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ:
²ÛÝáõÑ»ï¨ Ý»ñϳ۳óíáõÙ ¿ ¹³ë³Ï³ñ·Ù³Ý Ýáñ Ùá¹»ÉÇ ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßïáõÃÛáõÝÁ, áñÇ Ï»ÝïñáÝ³Ï³Ý ³é³ÝóùÁ ѳݹÇë³ÝáõÙ ¿ ëå³Ý»É-µ³Û»ñÇ ÙÇçáõϳÛÇÝ ÇÙ³ëïÁ` §Ù³Ñ å³ï׳é»ÉÁ¦:
²ÛÝ µ³Û»ñÁ, áñáÝù Ý»ñ³éí³Í »Ý ¹³ë³Ï³ñ·Ù³Ý Ýáñ Ùá¹»ÉÇ Ù»ç ¨ Ëáëùáõ٠ѳݹÇåáõÙ »Ý
³é³í»É ѳ׳Ë, ¹Çï³ñÏíáõÙ »Ý ß³ñ³ÑÛáõë³Ï³Ý ¨ ÇÙ³ë³ï³µ³Ý³Ï³Ý ϳéáõÛóÝ»ñÇ
ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó:
Лариса Асланян
ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ КАУЗАТИВЫ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
В данной статье рассматриваются каузативные глаголы современного английского языка и, в
частности, их подгруппа – лексические каузативы. Статья сосредоточена на классификации
глаголов “убивать”, предложенных Левиным (1993) и Лемменсом (1998), а также изложена
необходимость новой модели классификации, в которой учитывается и берется как основа ядерное
значение глагола “убивать” – “причинять смерть”. Глаголы, которые входят в состав новой модели
классификации и имеют самое частотное употребление в речи, обсуждаются с поверхностносинтактической и глубинно-семантической точек зрения.
233