Установление роли категорий связности и целостности в обеспечении организации современного английского текста

     Таким образом, текст состоится, если он обладает двумя признаками – структурной  связностью и содержательной цельностью. Причем оба признака неразрывны и  накладываются друг на друга. Присутствие  только одного из признаков еще не свидетельствует о целесообразно  построенном тексте. В плане выражения  текст может быть «связным» (использованы средства синтаксической связи; соблюдены  тема-рематические последовательности), но в плане содержания такой текст может оказаться абсурдным. Гиндин С.И. Внутренняя организация текста: Автореф. канд. дисс. М., 1972.

     Существуют  различные типы языковых отношений  между предложениями текста, которые обеспечивают его целостность и связность:

     • референция

     • субституция (substitute * замена) имени, глагола и предикативной группы, например: The President arrived. He ...

     • эллипсис имени, глагола и предикативной группы (= опущение, характерное для русского и не характерное для английского языка)

     • слова - коннекторы (союзы, предлоги ...)

     • лексическая когезия (мы можем взаимозаменять не все слова, а только синонимы)

     Референция  делится на анафору (референция имени, которое уже было сказано) и котафору (референция имени, которое ещё будет назван).

     Итак, чтобы текст был оформлен как  осмысленное целесообразное структурное  единство, необходимы оба признака – признак связности и признак  целостности.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ГЛАВА 3

РЕАЛИЗАЦИЯ  ЦЕЛОСТНОСТИ И СВЯЗНОСТИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ АНГЛИЙСКОМ ТЕКСТЕ

     В данной главе мы проанализируем современные  английские тексты и выявим характерные  признаки связности и целостности. В качестве анализируемых текстов были взяты тексты различных стилей английского языка – художественного, научного, публицистического и официально-делового.

3.1 Анализ  современного художественного английского  текста

The Dinner Party

     There are still some rich people in the world; and there were very many more some decades ago.

     Many of them lead lives of particular pleasure; commanding the finest artists to play and sing exactly what they wish to hear, and eating and drinking precisely what they want.

     But rich people have their problems too. They are seldom problems of finance, since most rich people have sufficient sense to hire other people to take care of their worries. But there are other problems.  They are the problems of behavior.

     Let me tell you one such a problem, which beset my uncle Octavian some decades ago.

     At that time I myself was fifteen. My uncle Octavian was then a rich man. He was a charming and accomplished host whose villa on the Cote d'Azur was an accepted rendezvous of the great; and he was a hospitable, contented, and most amiable man,– until one day in January.

     There was nothing special about that day, in the life of my uncle Octavian, except that it was his fifty-fifth birthday. As usual on such a day, he was giving a dinner party, a party for twelve people. All of them were old friends; two of them, indeed, were what were then called, unambiguously, "old flames".

     I myself was deeply privileged. I was staying with my uncle at his villa near Cap d'Antibes; and as a special concession on this happy day, I was allowed to come down to dinner. It was exciting to me to be admitted to such company, which included besides the two "old flames", and their respective husbands, a newspaper proprietor of exceptional intelligence and his fabulous American wife; a recent prime-minister of France and a monumental elder statesman of post-war Germany, and a Hubsburg prince and princess.

     Towards the end of a wonderful dinner when dessert had been brought in and the servants had left, my uncle leant forward to admire a magnificent solitaire diamond ring on the princess's hand. She was a handsome woman, of regal bearing; I remember the candlelight flashing on, and within, the canary-yellow stone as she turned her hand gracefully towards my uncle.

     The newspaper proprietor leant across the table and said: "May I also have a look?" She smiled and nodded. She took off the ring and held it out to him.

     "It was my grandmother’s – the old empress,"  she said. "I have not worn it for many years. It was said to have once belonged to Genghis Khan."

     There were   exclamations of delight and admiration. The ring was passed from hand to hand. For a moment it rested on my own palm, gleaming splendidly with that wonderful interior   yellow   glow   that   such jewels can command. Then I passed it on to my next-door neighbor.

     As I turned away again, I thought I saw her pass it on. At last I was almost sure I saw her. It was some twenty minutes later when the princess stood up, giving the signal for   the ladies   to withdraw. She looked   round   us   with   a pleasant smile. Then she said:

     "Before we leave you, may I have my ring back?"

     Then there was a pause, while each of us looked expectantly at his neighbor. Then there was silence.

     The princess was still smiling, though less easily. She was unused to asking for things twice. "If you please," she said, with a touch of hauteur. "Then we can leave the gentlemen to their port."

     When no one answered her, and the silence continued, I still thought that it could only be a practical joke, and that one of us – probably the prince himself – would produce the ring with a laugh and a flourish, perhaps chiding her for her carelessness. But when nothing happened at all, I knew that the rest of the night would be dreadful.

     I am sure that you can guess the sort of scene that followed. There was the embarrassment, immediate and shattering, of the guest – all of them old and valued friends. There was the freezing politeness of the prince, the near-tears of the princess. There were the demands to be searched, the overturning of chairs, the minute scrutiny of the carpet, and then of the whole room. There was the fact that presently no one would meet anyone else's eye.

     All these things happened, but they did not bring the princess's ring back again. It had vanished – an irreplaceable heirdom, worth possible two hundred thousand pounds – in a roomful of twelve people, all known to each other.

     No servants had entered the room. No one had left it for a moment. The thief (for now it could only be theft) was one of us, one of my uncle Octavian's cherished friends.

     I remember it was the French cabinet minister who was most insistent on being searched; indeed, in his excitement he had already started turning out his pockets, before my uncle held up his arm and stopped him.

     Uncle Octavian's face was pale and tremendously tense as he had been dealt a mortal blow. "There will be no searching," he commanded. "Not in my house. You are all my friends. The ring can only be lost. If it is not found" – he bowed towards the princess – "I will naturally make amends myself."

     The dreadful and fruitless search began again.

     The ring was never found, though the guests stayed nearly till dawn –  unwilling to be the first to leave, wishing to comfort my uncle (who though deadly calm was deeply stricken), and still hoping that, from the shambles of the dining-room, the ring would somehow appear.

     It never did appear, either then or later. My uncle Octavian, to the last, remained true to his rigid code, and adamant that no one was to be searched.

     I myself went back to England, and school, a few days later. I was very glad to escape. The sights of my uncle’s face, and the knowledge of his overturned world, were more than I could bear. All that he was left with, among the ruins of his way of life, was a question mark; which of his intimate friends was the thief?

     I do not know how, or on what scale, my uncle Octavian "made amends." I know that he never returned to his lonely house near Cap d'Antibes, and that he remained a recluse for the rest of his days. I know that, to our family surprise, he was a comparatively poor man when he died. He died, in fact, a few weeks ago, and that is why I feel I can tell the story.

     It would be wrong to say that he died a broken man, but he did die a profoundly sad one, with the special sadness of a hospitable host who never gave a single lunch or dinner-party for the last thirty years of his life.

                                                                                         Nicholas Monsarrat 

     В данном рассказе ведется речь о званом ужине, на котором пропало дорогое  бриллиантовое кольцо. Рассказ ведется  от первого лица, мальчика пятнадцати лет, который был свидетелем этого  странного исчезновения.

     Данный  рассказ, как и любой другой, является связанным и целостным. Об этом свидетельствуют  следующие типы связности: единство времени и лица, однородность  лексики, тема-рематические  последовательности, кореференция(подчинение всех элементов одной теме), различные лексические  средства  связи , субституция, слова - коннекторы. Целостность рассказа обеспечивается смысловой нитью, которая проходит через весь текст.

     Рассказ начинается с фразы-зачина “There are still some rich people in the world; and there were very many more some decades ago.”, которая информирует нас о характере и теме рассказа. При этом данное предложение является единственным в абзаце и выявляет его логико-смысловую функцию.

     При переходе от первого абзаца ко второму  используется субституция(замена предикативной группы): “There are still some rich people …Many of them…”

     При переходе от второго абзаца к третьему используется слово-коннектор, союз but: “Many of them lead lives of particular pleasure; commanding the finest artists to play and sing exactly what they wish to hear, and eating and drinking precisely what they want. But rich people have their problems too…..” – как мы видим, третий абзац несет противоположный смысл, и использование союза позволяет автору приблизиться к главной теме рассказа.

     На  этом своеобразное вступление, состоящее  из трёх абзацев, заканчивается. В этом вступлении автор вкратце описывает  плюсы и минусы богатых.

     Далее следует абзац, состоящий из одной фразы – “ Let me tell you one such a problem, which beset my uncle Octavian some decades ago.” Данная фраза несет экспрессивно-эмоциональную функцию и настраивает читателя к переходу и изложению важных в композиционном и смысловом отношении деталей. Использование такой лексики присуще художественному и публицистическому стилю.

     В следующем абзаце используется синонимичный повтор и союз-связка: “…My uncle Octavian was then a rich man. He was… and he was…” Следует заметить, что синонимичный повтор и замена предикативной группы довольно часто используется на протяжении всего рассказа.

     Последующий рассказ изобилует прямой речью и пояснениями автора: …The newspaper proprietor leant across the table and said: "May I also have a look?" She smiled and nodded. She took off the ring and held it out to him.

     "It was my grandmother’s –  the old empress,"  she said. "I have not worn it for many years. It was said to have once belonged to Genghis Khan"…

     …"Before we leave you, may I have my ring back?"

     Then there was a pause, while each of us looked expectantly at his neighbor. Then there was silence.

     The princess was still smiling, though less easily. She was unused to asking for things twice. "If you please," she said, with a touch of hauteur. "Then we can leave the gentlemen to their port."…

     Данный  отрывок текста тоже является связанным. Поскольку написан он от лица говорящего и поясняется непосредственно самим автором рассказа.

     При детальном рассмотрении можно установить, что в тексте нет ни одного компонента (слова, предложения, текстового фрагмента), который не был бы связан хотя бы еще с одним компонентом. Во всем рассказе проявляются тема-рематические последовательности, которые свидетельствуют о связности текста.

     Единство времени и лица одна из основных характеристик связанности текста. Данный рассказ ведётся от лица мальчика и написан в прошедшем времени, о чём свидетельствуют временные формы глаголов: was, called, brought, turned, stopped и т.д. Однако вступление и окончание рассказа написано в настоящем времени: lead, have, don’t know и т.д. Это связано с тем, что рассказ написан намного позже описанных событий.

     Итак, мы с уверенностью можем утверждать, что данный рассказ является целостным  и связанным текстом. Части, входящие в этот текст, связываются между собой, образуя целостность рассказа. Смысловая нить проходит через весь текст и обеспечивается лексическими, синтактическими и грамматическими средствами. 

3.2 Анализ  современного научного английского  текста

Pushing boundaries in above–belowground interactions 

     Belowground organisms, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, have long been credited with altering plant fitness. More recently, research on belowground organisms has revealed that AM fungi also influence a wide variety of aboveground organisms via plants (reviewed in Van Dam & Heil 2011; Bennett 2010). Schausberger et al. (2012) demonstrate that the presence of an AM fungus in the roots of a host plant alters volatile emissions and host plant attractiveness to parasitoids in the presence of herbivores. This extends previous studies that have focused on direct interactions of AM with plants (e.g. mycorrhizal fungal–plant–herbivore interactions; reviewed in Gehring & Bennett 2009), but have not conclusively demonstrated how belowground organisms, and AM fungi in particular, influence third trophic level organisms such as parasitoids (Gange, Brown & Aplin 2003; Guerrieri et al. 2004; Hempel et al. 2009; Leitner et al. 2010; Hoffmann, Vierheilig & Schausberger 2011a,b; Wooley & Paine 2011) via the release of plant volatiles that attract parasitoids that attack herbivores on host plants. Until recently, these studies failed to conclusively document the effects of AM fungi on both volatile release and attraction of parasitoids. For example, Wooley & Paine (2011) and Gange, Brown & Aplin (2003) have shown variation in parasitoid attraction to plants hosting different strains and species of Glomus as compared to non-mycorrhizal plants. Hoffmann, Vierheilig & Schausberger (2011a) also showed greater preference by parasitoids for eggs oviposited on plants associated with a single AM fungus. In addition, a single AM fungus in the roots of a host plant has been shown to positively influence parasitoid life-history characteristics (Hempel et al. 2009; Hoffmann, Vierheilig & Schausberger 2011b). However, none of these studies measured volatile profiles for host plants, so parasitoid attraction could not be directly attributed to volatiles. A study on AM fungal influenced volatile release revealed differences but did not test whether changes in volatiles influenced parasitoids (Leitner et al. 2010). One study combined both parasitoid attractiveness and measurement of volatiles, but they primarily tested effects of attraction to plants in the absence of herbivory and never made comparisons between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants experiencing herbivory (Guerrieri et al. 2004). Unlike these previous experiments, Schausberger et al. measured both changes in volatile chemistry as well as parasitoid attraction in a fully factorial design.

     The results presented by Shausberger et al. open up multiple future opportunities in above–belowground research. The first of these opportunities involves identifying the mechanisms by which AM fungi alter parasitoid attraction. For example, what are the biochemical or transcriptional changes that occur following AM fungal colonization that result in altered volatile profiles? Are the mechanisms suggested for AM fungal alteration of direct chemical defences the same mechanisms that alter volatile profiles? Colonization by AM fungi has been shown to turn on the salicylic acid pathway temporarily, a process that may prime the jasmonic acid pathway for herbivore attack (reviewed in Pozo & Azcon-Aguilar 2007). The induction of volatiles is linked to the jasmonic acid pathway (reviewed in Heil 2008), and therefore, plants may be primed for a faster or greater release of volatiles when colonized by AM fungi.

     However, there may be other mechanisms by which AM fungi influence volatile release. For example, given that AM fungi increase plant biomass and fitness in the Phaseolus vulgaris system studied by Shausberger et al. (as well as many other systems), it could simply be that the increased resources provided by the mutualism allow plants to allocate more resources to plant defensive characteristics (e.g. direct constitutive and induced defences as well as indirect defences via volatile attraction; Bennett, Alers-Garcia & Bever 2006) or that changes in plant size or structure in association with AM fungi benefit or hinder parasitoid searching capabilities (Gange, Brown & Aplin 2003).

     What characteristics of the volatile blends produced in the presence of AM fungi are attractive for parasitoids? Shausberger et al. showed there were fewer chemicals present in the volatile blends of AM fungal plants before herbivory (relative to plants not hosting AM fungi), but this difference disappeared after herbivory. However, different volatile chemicals were released from plants experiencing herbivory and colonized or not by AM fungi (see also Leitner et al. 2010). Shausberger et al. did not address whether increased attraction to plants hosting AM fungi is associated with a particular volatile or blend of volatiles. Answering this question will allow us to better understand the biological system, create applications for pest control and inform our understanding of the biochemical or transcriptional mechanisms via which AM fungi alter plants.