480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays

Maksimov Alexey Nikolaevich. Modality of preference and its expression in modern English language: dissertation... candidate of philological sciences: 10.02.04 / Maksimov Alexey Nikolaevich; [Place of protection: Mosk. ped. state un-t].- Moscow, 2009.- 169 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 09-10/1084

Introduction

Chapter I Preference as a linguistic and logical modality 11

1.1. Modality in light of the dictemic theory of text 11

1.1.1. Modal and referential aspects of sentence semantics.. 19

1.2. Preferential statements in the system of syntactic constructions of evaluative modality 34

1.3. Typology of logical modalities 44

1.3.1. Preference in the system of axiological modalities 52

1.4. Logical laws of preference 58

Chapter 1 Conclusions 64

Chapter II. Semantic and pragmatic features of English statements with modality of preference 67

2.1. Ways of presenting the object of preference in the statement 67

2.2. Semantic constants in the sphere of modality of preference 73

2.3. Preference representation models in speech pragmatics 84

2.4. Situational and speech conditioning of statements of preference 97

Chapter II Conclusions 102

Chapter III. Language Models of Preference Modality Expression in Modern English 105

3.1. Mode of preference in the semantic structure of nominative and predicative units 105

3.2. Expression of operational and non-operational preferences in English vocabulary 113

3.3. Comparative constructions of preference with adjectives... 119

3.3.1. Features of preference statements with the comparative better

3.4. Preference constructs with had better and would rather 132

3.5. Preference in conditionals 135

Chapter III Conclusions 139

Conclusion 142

Bibliography 147

Lexicographic sources and reference literature 163

List of sources of illustrative material 164

Appendix 166

Introduction to work

The proposed dissertation continues a series of studies on the category of modality. IN modern science quite a lot of material has been accumulated, covering various approaches to the study of this category. V.V. Vinogradov, G.A. Zolotova, V.N. Bondarenko, T.P. Lomtev, I.I. Meshchaninov, V.Z. Panfilov, G.V. Kolshansky dealt with this problem in Russian linguistics. Vostokov A.Kh., Shakhmatov A.A. and many others, in foreign linguistics, various aspects of the category of modality were studied by Balli Sh., Vezhbitska A., Grepl M., Kiefer F., Palmer F.R., Wrigt G.Kh. background, S. Zhazha and many others. Unlike traditional lexical and grammatical categories, which are built on the basis of clear paradigmatic connections of elements that together form the matter of language, modality is a category of a higher order (a category of categories) in the sense that it integrates linguistic elements of different categorical subsystems. So, individual words, grammatical forms, syntactic constructions, elements of prosody take part in the expression of subjective modal meanings, which allows us to conclude that modality is expressed at all sign levels of the language when they are actualized in speech. In linguistics, modality is a lexico-grammatical category that expresses the semantics of the relation of denotations to reality, that is, the relation of the content of the message to reality in terms of reality / unreality, manifested by the grammatical and lexical means of the language [Vinogradov 1950, Zolotova 1962, Panfilov 1977, Bondarenko 1979, Belyaeva 1988 ]. Modality also includes the meanings of language units that express some assessment of the speaker's content of the message.

In the dissertation, modality is considered at various levels of the language. It is revealed in the semantics of the sentence in the form of a general

5
relation of propositive content to reality, in
semantics of significant words and phrases, which, together with
subject-denotative or referential meaning express
subjective assessment of the speaker reflected in the sentence
reality, as well as in the semantics of semi-functional words - modal
verbs and introductory words - realizing the meaning of the possibility,
necessity, obligation, etc. What has been said about modality
corresponds to those put forward by Professor M.Ya. Bloch provisions
regarding the two main functions of the sentence-statement -
nominative-denotative and evaluative-setting, predicative.
The first is reflected in the content of the proposal

a certain fragment of extralinguistic reality, the second implements the assignment of a propositive name (the denotation of a sentence) to reality from the point of view of the speaker [Bloch 2004].

Within the framework of the developed by Professor M.Ya. Bloch's concepts of sentence and dicteme, it seems possible to study individual subjective-modal meanings in their linguistic embodiment in the structure of an utterance.

object Our research focuses on statements of preference, their semantic and pragmatic features, as well as a set of linguistic means of their implementation in English.

Subject study in the dissertation favors modality
preferences, considered in a systemic relationship with other
subjective-modal meanings. Scientific interest is
linguistic content and expression of preference, relationship of preference with
other evaluative modalities, formal logical features
statements of preference, linguo-pragmatic features

constructing a preferential discourse.

Relevance topic is determined by its inclusion in the broad problems of modern linguistics, in which a significant

attention is paid to the study of anthropocentric and modal semantics. Preference is one of the subjective-modal meanings that reflect inner world person. Recently, scientists have been actively studying the gender and cognitive aspects of the semantics of preference [Diedrich 2005, Ryskina 2004, Lopatina 2007], however, the modal features of this semantics remain insufficiently studied, due to the fact that there are no special works studying the modality of preference in the logical-semantic structure of an utterance. . In this regard, it seems relevant and necessary to conduct a study of preference in the system of modality, as well as to study the means of expressing this modality in modern English.

Novelty research is due to the specifics of the study of the modal aspect of the semantics of preference. In the dissertation, preference is considered as a polymodality, i.e. discursive semantics, represented in the text by various modal meanings with varying degrees of their neutralization, an attempt is made to determine the modal content of preference in various types preference statements.

aim research is the study of preference in terms of its semantic and pragmatic characteristics and modal functions implemented in the utterance by means of the English language. The goal is to solve the following tasks:

1) consider preference in the system of subjective-modal
values ​​and determine which values ​​make up the modality
preferences in specific statements;

2) compare expressions of preference with other types of modal
evaluative expressions, in particular, with statements of will,
comparisons, desires, motivations;

3) study logical preferences in practical situations
decision making;

4) to study models of verbalization of preference and methods of introduction
the object of preference in the utterance;

5) study the structure of preferential discourse, i.e. define
formal-syntactic and semantic connections of expressions of preference with
other utterances in speech.

As the main methods To solve the tasks set, the work uses semantic-syntactic analysis, logical-semantic analysis, contextual analysis and transformational analysis.

Theoretical significance dissertation consists in defining and studying new subjective-modal meanings and, accordingly, expanding scientific knowledge about the category of modality.

Practical significance the dissertation is determined by the possibility of applying the provisions submitted for defense, as well as the data of the analysis of specific language material in lectures and practical classes in theoretical grammar, stylistics, lexicology, logic, in the practice of teaching English, in the development of special courses, writing theses and term papers.

material The study was based on a corpus of examples taken by the method of continuous sampling from modern English-language fiction, with a total volume of about 7000 analyzed pages, dictionaries LDOCE, MEDFAL. The card file of examples has about 1500 units, excluding recurring uses.

theoretical basis researches make up the general provisions on the grammatical structure of M.Ya. Bloch, in particular his doctrine of the sentence and the dicteme, the works of V.V. Gurevich regarding the category of modality and its connection with the actual division of the sentence, the work of I.R. Galperin on the modality of the text. When considering preference in the system

8 logical and linguistic modalities, we relied on the works of A.A. Ivin, G.Kh. von Wright, P.M. Haar, devoted to the logic of assessments and classification of modalities, as well as to the works of Arutyunova N.D., Kubryakova E.S., Markelova T.V., Wolf E.M., devoted to the analysis of the general category of assessment and preference in particular. The dissertation also uses the provisions of cognitive linguistics regarding the semantics of modal categories, formulated by Boldyrev N.N., Kobrina O.A., Romanova T.V.

The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and has a total of 169 pages. The bibliographic list contains 225 titles of monographs, textbooks, teaching aids, articles of domestic and foreign authors. The list of sources of illustrative material is 25 English-language works.

The first chapter highlights the general theoretical provisions of the dissertation within the framework of the stated concept of modality, considers modality systems in language and logic, determines the place of preferential statements in the general system of modal statements.

The second chapter examines the semantic and pragmatic features of preference statements, notes the polymodality of language expressions of preference, i.e. their ability to profile various modal shades in a speech situation, thanks to which they can function in various speech acts - advice, motivation, expression of will, comparison. The question of ways of presenting the object of preference in the statement is studied separately.

The third chapter deals with language means of expressing preference in English. Among the grammatical means, syntactic models for identifying an object of preference such as exactly the kind, just the sort of, the one with, one of the, there "s nothing like, nothing but, of all the, the very thing, etc., are analyzed,

9 grammatical idioms had better, would rather, would sooner, constructions with comparative adjectives, conditional sentences. Among the lexical means, we analyze both the lexemes that are most often used in the meaning of the preference love - like - choose - prefer, and the lexemes that occasionally appear in this meaning.

In conclusion, the main results of the study are summarized and prospects for further work are outlined.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were discussed at meetings of the Department of English Grammar of the Moscow Pedagogical state university, at the Department of English and Teaching Methods of the Moscow Economic and Linguistic Institute, at postgraduate seminars. Some aspects of the research were presented as a report at the 3rd International Scientific and Practical Conference MELI 2008 "Education, Linguistics, Psychology: Traditions and Innovations". 4 papers have been published on the topic of the dissertation.

Regulations dissertations submitted for defense:

1. Preference in a categorical sense is the value-selective attitude of the subject to the surrounding reality, which develops in the process of his life, it is a conscious or unconscious choice by a person of a certain way of life, the choice of certain material and spiritual values, the formation of tastes and beliefs.

2. The object of preference can be a specific object, characterized by a certain priority quality, an action, a situation that most satisfies personal interests. Preference is a relative and not always temporally constant assessment, since it is always focused on possible changes in circumstances and is realized in a situation of comparing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the compared alternatives.

10
3. Preference is realized in a dictem by a variety of grammatical
models and lexical means that bring into this semantics
own values. It promotes manifestation in modality
preferences of various subjective-modal shades. We allocate
semantic constants in preference. These are the values ​​that are
content preferences in a particular situation of communication.
Preference, in addition to the basic meanings of choice and taste, can
be characterized by shades of will, desire,

predispositions, beliefs of the speaker and can be used in the pragmatic functions of advice and motivation.

The object of preference can be represented in the statement not only by a construction with the verb prefer and its synonyms, but also by direct reference to it using attributive phrases, while the definitions are not descriptive (descriptive), but specific. Their logical and communicative purpose is to limit the number of alternatives from which the choice is made, this is the mechanism of preference in any particular situation. Therefore, preference for Pi implies elimination of P2 and P3, preference for P3 implies elimination of Pi and Pr. This is a law that applies in all cases of decision-making.

The semantics of a preferential statement is a multicomponent frame that reflects the practical situation of decision making under certain conditions. The frame contains the subject of preference, the object of preference, the action of preference, the priority attribute, the motivating choice, the goals that determine the choice, the area of ​​alternatives. In a particular utterance, preference can be expressed by updating one or more components of the frame by appropriate linguistic means.

Modal and referential aspects of sentence semantics

We recognize as modal any statement that, in addition to its denotative-subject content (a proposition in which the nominations of objects of reality are fixed and a reference to them is established), includes subjective content as an expression of the speaker's attitude to a fragment of the described reality: a specific object or event. From this we can conclude that two fundamentally different types of semantics are realized in the statement: 1) referential (reflection of the world, fixing the nominations of objects of reality in the sentence structure), 2) modal (reflection of the speaker's attitude to the panorama of the events described by him, subjective assessment and characterization of actions, their performers and related circumstances). The division of the semantics of a sentence into modal and referential is in some cases conditional, since the same lexical and grammatical means can perform both referential (referential) and modal (evaluative) functions in a sentence. However, despite this complexity, the structure of most sentences makes it possible to quite clearly contrast the subjective-modal and referential-factual content planes. The first meaningful component of the statement refers to the speaker, the second - to the situation displayed in it. For example:

Martha was stupid enough to come to the office where I work as the firm had handled Dad s will (Lisa Jackson "The Night Before", p. 414).

This sentence, on the one hand, presents the event (the arrival of Martha) as actually happened, on the other hand, it characterizes a certain person, designated by the proper name Martha, i.e. expresses the attitude of the speaker towards this person. Thus, the evaluative modality in this sentence is expressed in the predicate was stupid enough, and the reference to actual events is established through the infinitive phrase and the subordinate clause to come to the office where I work....

The difference between modality and referentiality is clearly seen in the structure of a dicteme (one or several sentences, thematically united and updated in a communication situation), containing individual value judgments. For example:

The good news was that Hannah was going to live. One of the few Montgomery children to have avoided Amanda or Atropos's deadly schemes (Lisa Jackson "The Night Before", p. 432).

The referential parts of this dictem are, firstly, the noun phrases Hannah, Amanda, Montgomery children (the interlocutors are well aware of the specific people designated by these names), and secondly, the proposition - one of the few Montgomery children to have avoided..., representing the event as a real fact of the past. The coreference of the designations is also obvious: Hannah / one of the few Montgomery children, on the one hand, and Amanda I Atropos, on the other. Thus, the referential aspect of the semantics of this dictem can be represented by two sentences (judgments) that are in a certain thematic connection with each other and refer to reality - Hannah was one of the few Montgomery children; Hannah avoided Amanda or Atropos s deadly schemes. As part of the utterance, these sentences, first of all, have a denotative content, since they serve to express the corresponding event and its participants. The evaluative modality in this dictem is represented by the main sentence the good news was, which embodies the author's positive attitude towards the event being transmitted.

Many researchers (Blokh M.Ya., Gurevich V.V., Paducheva E.V., Alisova T.B.) tend to oppose modal (assertive) and presumptive components in the informational aspect of statements. The modal part of the statement is in some way the actualizer of the entire communicative meaning, since it is through the modality (the speaker's intention) that information is distributed over the topic-rhematic structure of the statement, in which the most important components of the content of the message are revealed. Its separate parts: nominal and verbal groups can have different denotative status, i.e. correlate differently with reality depending on the informational perspective chosen by the speaker and the syntactic model of sentence construction. So, some nominal and predicative groups of statements can directly correlate with reality, i.e. be used with a specific reference, others can be used non-referentially, i.e. to denotate an event that, in essence, did not exist, others can convey various subjective-modal shades of the speaker and express his opinion (confidence or assumption) regarding some event. In the example below, let's separate the modal and referential parts:

It was fitting somehow that she had died at that place where the life was sucked out of a person while she was being waited on hand and foot (Lisa Jackson "The Night Before", p. 396).

The highlighted part of the sentence performs a referential-denotative function. The speaker's personal attitude to the named event (modality) is conveyed using the word fitting, which forms a modal frame that subordinates subordinate clause. Further, the speaker characterizes the place where the event took place - where the life was sucked out of a person - also introducing subjective meanings into the expression.

Preference in the system of axiological modalities

Axiological modalities are expressed through the words "good", "bad", "better", "worse" and other words that occupy different positions in the sentence. The peculiarity of these words is that they do not have a specific denotation, which is a property of any object. The search for the proper meaning of such words as "good", "bad" did not lead to satisfactory results. Researchers highlight various functions axiological modality operators. A.A. Ivin considers the expressive and substitutive function of the named words. In the first use, the words "good", "bad" denote various mental states. For example, when I generally say “this is good music”, I am simply expressing a feeling of pleasure, enjoyment from listening, i.e. I do not have in mind the individual merits of a piece of music, but express the general impression. In the second use, the linguistic units under consideration denote individual empirical properties of objects. So, for example, if I say "this good car”, then I can mean its speed, maneuverability, capacity, ease of control, and many other qualities that affect my preference in a particular case [Ivin, 1970:36]. The statement of an approving assessment in relation to an object or its individual qualities is often due to the choice or use of this object as suitable for some purpose. In this regard, preference as the choice of one of the many is always associated with an expression of approval in relation to the preferred object and its properties.

J. Katz, R.S. Hartmann, G. H. von Wright, J. Moore, M. Ossowska, D. Ermson. These researchers call the word "good" a pseudo-predicate, a variable, a sorting label, a syncategorematic predicate, since the meaning of the word "good" is not present in the word itself, but is found in the meanings of other words, outside of the conceptual content of which the meaning of "good" has no meaning. R. Hare also distinguishes between descriptive and evaluative content of the word "good". The descriptive meaning of the word "good" in "a good apple" differs from the descriptive meaning of the word "good" in "a good cactus" because here the descriptions correspond to two different taste sensations, but the evaluative meaning, in his opinion, remains the same. The evaluative meaning of the words "good" and "bad" is manifested, according to R. Hare, in speech acts of praise and censure. The author rightly notes that the words "good" and "bad", used in these meanings, do not refer to one object, but characterize, on the positive or negative side, a series of objects with the same properties. Thus, if a and b are declared good because they have the positive property m, then A and B must also be good if they have the same property m; bad AaB can only be called if, in addition to m, they have negative property n, neutralizing m or unfavorably distinguishing them from a and b. This logical conclusion is especially relevant in a situation of preference, when the subject making the choice evaluates both the positive and negative aspects of objects.

Descriptive and evaluative plans for the content of language units are also distinguished by A.N. Baranov. He notices that an assessment, unlike a description, must be internally substantiated, reasoned, which is why the question why is more appropriate in relation to an assessment, cf.: - Have you already worked before? -Yes, not for long. - This is bad. - Why? - Because not for long. The description, on the contrary, is often spontaneous and uncontrollable, cf.: - The room was completely empty, only in the middle was a round oak table. - Why round? This explains the ease of motivating the assessment and the difficulty of motivating the true description, cf.: - He is careless / treacherous, because ... / Snow is white, because ... . Thus, the substantiation of descriptions requires the involvement of more general categories related to the model of the subject's world, to his ideas about reality. In the article "Axiological strategies in the structure of language" A.N. Baranov identifies several types of assessment and describes the cognitive structure of the assessment procedure. The author talks about 1) quantitative assessments that characterize objects and situations in numerical parameters (twelve crafts, three wives, one bouquet of flowers), 2) prototypical assessments that correlate the characteristics of objects and situations with a certain norm (little honey, many problems, small pot) , 3) homeostatic assessments that report the sufficiency / insufficiency of the amount of a trait to achieve a given goal (milk is enough, this money is enough), 4) general assessments that characterize objects and situations from the point of view of the speaker’s positive or negative attitude towards them (great actor, delicate situation, vile disposition). Each of the distinguished types of assessment represents a certain level of the assessment procedure. The concept of a complete axiological procedure, according to A.N. Baranov, corresponds to the sequential passage of all these stages. At the same time, the act of evaluation does not necessarily require a sequential promotion from one level to another in accordance with the evaluation hierarchy. Moreover, deviations from the standard assessment path, i.e. from the complete procedure they set the typology of evaluative situations [Baranov, 1989:74-90].

Ways of presenting the object of preference in an utterance

The modality of preference is a complex semantics that is expressed in the entire section of the syntactic model of the sentence. Being the relation of the subject to something, preference is realized mainly in the verbal construction that serves as the predicate of the sentence. However, the most informative element of any preferential statement is not the predicate, but the object of preference. It is he who falls into the communicative focus of the statement and is logically accentuated. The object of preference is often not expressed by a single word, but by a group of words that communicate its various characteristics. For example: I didn't know you were fond of nocturnal walks. He was beginning to think that it would have been wiser to take the inland path. He was known to like fast cars. There's nothing like home-made pastry. I suppose you wouldn't read detective fiction. In all the given examples, the object of preference is closely connected with the word specifying its semantics. When the definition is eliminated, these statements lose their original meaning. The necessity of these definitions, their logical emphasis in sentences of preference is explained by the fact that they all participate in hidden oppositions: nocturnal walks - walks in the daytime; the inland path - a roundabout path; fast cars - slow cars; home-made pastry - purchased pastry; detective fiction - science fiction, in the contrasting semantics of which the choice of the speaker from a number of possibilities is explicated. Thus, the semantic attribute presented in the definition of the preference object implicitly assumes its semantic counterpart, without which the preference actualization is impossible. Therefore, speaking about preference, the speaker singles out the attribute of the object, and not the object itself, or the object in the totality of its functions and attributes, in contrast to objects that have other characteristics and functions. It should be noted that in preferential statements the modifiers of the object of preference are not descriptive (descriptive), but selective or specific. In some cases, they specify strict selection criteria. For example: What the college required was an academic, preferably young, to give three seminars at the beginning of each term on the Poetic Inheritance of Anglicanism, someone with a reputation or in the process of making it - who could relate to the young ordinands and who would fit in with the ethos of St. Anselms (P.D. James, "Death in Holy Orders", p. 128). In this example, the defining parts do not describe the object of preference, but reveal narrowly specific standards, thereby restricting the concept (the set of conceivable objects) to a certain number of instances. A preference in a logical relation is always a limitation of a concept. For example: Here was the library of Father John's youth, student days and priesthood, but there was also a row of paperback detective stories. Dalgliesh saw that Father John was addicted to women writers of the Golden Age: Dorothy L. Sayers, Margery Allingham and Ngaio Marsh (P.D. James, "Death in Holy Orders", p. 264).

Sometimes the restriction of a concept (the choice of one object from a set) is accompanied by the expansion of a generic concept (the set from which the choice is made), which to a certain extent affects the style of the statement. Compare: He actually danced with her twice! And she was the only girl in the room that he asked a second time - He actually danced with her twice! And she was the only creature in the room that he asked a second time (J. Austen "Pride and Prejudice", p. 11).

The pronoun she indicates the object of preference in both cases, the word only produces a restriction in both sentences, but the word creature outlines a much wider range of choice than the word girl, it, in fact, covers everything living in the room. In this regard, the second sentence is colored with a modal shade of exaggeration.

The logic of preference is based on the following principles: 1) one generic concept is divided into species 2) one species of this genus is preferred to another species, species. In this regard, in a situation of preference, a person necessarily compares objects within the framework of a common whole, sometimes incompatible things are subject to comparison. However, beyond comparison within general concept preference is not possible. Consequently, a person gives preference to a particular sport, a certain kind of hobby (hobby), some musical or literary genre, etc., in its correlation and comparison with other sports, hobbies, etc. Thus, preference includes a logical operation division of a concept based on a comparison of the specific features of its constituent parts.

Mode of Preference in the Semantic Structure of Nominative and Predicative Units

Having considered the semantic and pragmatic features of statements with the modality of preference, we can pay attention to some means of its expression in English. Preliminarily, it should be noted that any semantics is ultimately realized at the level of a dicteme - a thematic and style-forming unit of an oral or written text. However, the means of its expression can be the most heterogeneous linguistic elements, from simple to more complex. Thus, the following lexemes have the meaning of preference modality in English: prefer, favor, taste, choose, their nominal and adjectival derivatives; syntactic constructions would rather, had better; as well as certain types of comparative constructions with adjectives. Of course, this is not the whole list of possible means united by the commonality of functions. Of these units, the former are more likely to be in the area of ​​the lexical scope of expression, which are discussed in detail in 3.2. dissertations; the latter can be called grammatical constructions with the proviso that the analytic combinations would rather, had better are morphologically and syntactically unchanged (with the possible exception of possible abbreviations to d rather and d better) and function as one word. But comparative constructions can undoubtedly be considered a product of grammar, since their modeling is based on the morphological category of degrees of comparison of adjectives.

This section of the dissertation is devoted to the study of the preference modus, an invariant logical-semantic structure that determines specific models of preference verbalization in linguistic forms. It should be noted that in all the variety of preferential contexts, the logical form of preference remains the same and practically unchanged. Being thus a transparent deep structure, it helps to identify this modality in the general semantics of the text. We refer to the logical form of preference the semantics of value comparison (which includes the comparison and opposition of objects and situations according to certain characteristics, the unification and exclusion of alternatives, and the choice made on the basis of these operations). In the text, the mode of preference can be supplemented by the expression of various shades of the emotional-volitional sphere of the speaker, revealing his attitude to the object of preference, and it can also be included in other connections and relationships - causal, conditional, target, etc. Choice and preference, therefore, always turn out to be determined by the final goals and the specific conditions of the situation. In all the variety of lexical and grammatical means of expressing the modality of preference, it is necessary to single out those units in which the modality of preference is presented in a collapsed form, the so-called logical preference operators. This English verbs prefer, choose, pick, select, favor adjectives favorite, most suitable, nouns preference, hobby. This also includes syntactic constructions such as it is better, had better, would rather, union rather than, and some others. It should be noted that we unite these linguistic units not at the individual content level - the semantic structures of these units are different, but at the functional, modal level, abstracting from their individual differences. In the text, the function of each of these words is to indicate the choice of one object by excluding others. For example:

And the girl was the opposite of any girl she would ever have picked for David. She was plain, mousy and bespectacled (Lois Duncan, "Killing Mr. Griffin", p.210). Her favorite walk, and where she frequently went while the others were calling on Lady Catherine, was along the open grove which edged that side of the park, where there was a nice sheltered path, which no one seemed to value but herself, and where she felt beyond the reach of Lady Catherine's curiosity. (J. Austen, "Pride and Prejudice", p. 179) In this sentence, the logical form of preference is supplied with additional information about the object of preference, these are various kinds of characteristics - where she frequently went, along the open grove, a nice sheltered path, which no one seemed to value but herself. This kind of descriptive information enriches the semantics of preference, colors it with additional subjective meanings. The ability to convey the situation of preference in the text in all its multidimensionality characterizes the above lexical and grammatical units, determines the frequency of their use. The main feature of these units and their derivatives (preference, choice, favorite) as modalized words is their autonomy, i.e. the absence of strict semantic restrictions on compatibility, the free formation of collocation links with words expressing the categorization of the object of preference. This is evidenced by the data of dictionaries. Here are some examples of how the adjective favorite can be combined with nouns from the Macmillan English Dictionary For Advanced Learners (MEDFAL) and from the Longman Dictionary Of Contemporary English (LDOCE): 1. His favorite pastimes were hunting and golf. 2. What's your favorite food? 3. Stephen King is one of my favorite writers. 4. Who's your favorite actor? 5. I'll take you to my favorite restaurant tomorrow. According to dictionaries, this adjective appears in only one set expression in American English: favorite son (a politician, sports player, etc. who is popular with the people in the area that they come from). As can be seen from the examples given, the words combined with this adjective do not represent a single category or class. Their compatibility with the adjective favorite is due to the fact that each of these words represents in the mind of the speaker a certain thematic area (concept), a set of objects from which a choice is made. Thus, in the examples given, the nouns defined by the adjective favourite specify the area of ​​preference, and do not designate a single item.

To begin with, I would like to make a small introductory part on the use of the verb to prefer .

I think everyone knows his translation - " prefer”, and it is used when expressing general preferences:

• I prefer fizzy drinks to still. - I I prefer carbonated drinks are non-carbonated.
• He prefers rafting to climbing - He prefers rafting rock climbing.

This design means prefer one to another, i.e. prefer one over the other. And in the English version there is a preposition to.

When using the verb prefer two forms can be used: “ prefer to do” or “ prefer doing” , they convey the same meaning:

• When she is abroad, she prefers to stay in a quiet hotel in the suburbs. - When she is abroad, she prefers stop in a quiet hotel somewhere in the suburbs.

The same can be said in a slightly different way:

• When she is abroad, she prefer to stay in a quiet hotel in the suburbs.

Now to rather.

Rather than

This turnover is usually used in a construction that can be translated in general terms: “I would prefer That, not this". Nouns, adjectives, adverbs, infinitives, or forms ending in -ing can be used here:

• I'd prefer to go there by bus rather than by train. - I would go there by bus, A Not by train.
• I'd call your hairstyle weird rather than original. I would call your hairstyle weird A Not original.
• She prefers going shopping on workdays rather than on weekends. She prefers to go shopping on weekdays, but not on weekends.

Continuing the topic of foreign countries:

• When she is abroad, she prefers to stay at a host familyrather thanat a hotel. She prefers to live with her family A Not at the hotel when abroad.

If in circulation with rather than in the main clause, the full infinitive is used (i.e. with the particle to ), then in another part, the so-called. "Naked" infinitive (i.e. one verb) or gerund:

• Unlike you, Tom prefers to train hard rather than be/ being a couch potato. – Unlike you, Tom is hard at work, but not lying on the sofa.
• Rather than hang/hanging about, I prefer to read books - I prefer to read a book, A Not loiter around idle.

By the way, what does the abbreviation mean? I ’ d (prefer) ? Nothing but I would prefer . The fact is that many, while memorizing certain clichés, sometimes do not know their decoding. Would prefer to do smth/ doing smth means that the speaker would prefer do in specific situations:

• Would you like tea or coffee, Alice? Oh, such a hot day! I 'd prefer to drink something cool and fresh. – Alice, would you like tea or coffee? - It's so hot today! I would preferred drink something cool and refreshing.
• Karen, what do you think about going to that new sushi restaurant tonight? – You know, I don’t like raw fish, so I ’ d prefer going somewhere else. – Karen, what do you think about us going to a new sushi restaurant tonight? – You know, I don’t like raw fish, so I would rather go somewhere else.

Would rather

The turnover is synonymous with the meaning of the construction ‘ would prefer to’ , i.e. what we discussed above. The whole difference lies in the grammatical structure: after would rather use the infinitive without the particle to , and the whole structure is reduced to ‘ d rather (do) :

• Shall I turn on the box? – In fact, Casey, I ’ d rather read a book. - Shall I turn on the TV? “Actually, Casey, I would rather read book.
• Steven, you're drunk as a cobbler! Maybe you should go for a walk? – Never ever! I 'd rather stay here and toss off one more pint of beer. Stephen, you're drunk as hell! Maybe you can go for a walk? - Never! I better stay here and miss another glass.

By the way, if we built our answer in the first example a little differently, namely: we would advise Casey read a book, you would use:

• Shall I turn on the box? – Oh, Casey, you 'd better read a book. - Shall I turn on the TV? — Casey, revered would You better book.

To make a turn with would rather negative, we use the particle not before the verb:

• I ’ d rather not stay up late and go to bed right now. - I would preferred Not linger late and went would sleep right now.

Sometimes turnover with ‘ d rather not used for short answers:

• So, Garret, will you invite Sam to you birthday party? – I’ d rather not. “Well, Garrett, are you going to invite Sam to your birthday party?” - I'd rather not call.

And another design would rather …. than, meaning "I'd rather do this than that":

• I ’ d rather become an old maid than marry this moron. - Better I stay old maid, how I'm going to marry this asshole.

Would rather : do it You this is better than this

Or don't do it at all. This is the meaning of the following construction, the structure of which is: would rather someone did something. It should be noted that again the grammar goes across the meaning - the verb is used in past time (Simple past), and its meaning refers to present or future time:

• I 'd rather you came I'm very tired. - come better tomorrow, I'm very tired.
• I 'd rather she didn't tell my mother what happened. - I I don't want her to tell my mom about what happened.
• Shall I turn on the box? – I 'd rather you didn't. - Shall I turn on the TV? - Better Not necessary.
• Ok, I'll pay the bill but I 'd rather you did- Okay, I'll pay the bill. But it would be better if you This did.

Today we will talk about the word prefer, which is widely used both in oral and written speech in English. With the help of this verb, we talk about our preferences and tastes.

In this article, you will learn when we use prefer and would prefer in English, and how to build sentences with these words correctly.

Usage and translation of prefer in English

The word prefer is translated as "prefer". This verb expresses a person's preferences. We use it to say what we like. Moreover, we are talking about our constant tastes, that is, about what we always prefer, and not in any particular situation.

We use prefer when we say:

1. We like something/someone more than someone/something else
For example: She prefers cats to dogs.

He prefers blondes to brunettes.
He prefers blondes to brunettes.

They prefer coffee to tea
They prefer coffee to tea.

2. We enjoy doing something more than doing something else.
For example: She prefers to play sports than watch TV.

She prefers speaking English to speaking French.
She prefers to speak English than French.

I prefer staying at home to going fishing.
I prefer to stay at home than go fishing.

Affirmative sentences with the verb prefer

Since we are talking about permanent preferences, we use Present Simple tense in the sentence. There are 3 ways in which we can construct a sentence with this verb.

1. Compare two items

Actor+ prefer(s) + one thing + to + another thing

We use this pattern when we say that we prefer one thing over another. Since the sentence uses time present simple, then if we are talking about someone (he, she, it), then the ending -s is added to our prefer.

I
You
We	prefer	coffee		tea
They		dogs	to	cats
She		pencils		pens
He	prefers
It

We prefer fish to meat.
We prefer fish to meat.

He prefers serials to movies.
He prefers series to films.

2. Compare two actions

Actor+ prefer(s) + -ing action + to + -ing action

When we say we'd rather do something than do something else, we add -ing to our action to show that it's a process.

I
You
We	prefer	eating		drinking
They		walking	to	driving
She		reading		watching
He	prefers
It

They prefer jogging to doing the exercises.
They prefer jogging than exercising.

She prefers washing the dishes to sweeping a floor.
She prefers to do the dishes than to sweep the floors.

Actor+ prefer(s) + to action + rather than + action

This construction is often used when talking about the same action, but different preferences. It allows you not to repeat this action twice in one sentence. For example, I prefer to take a cold shower than (take) a hot shower.

I
You
We	prefer	to eat sweets		(eat) vegetables
They		to live in a flat	rather than	(live) in a house
She		to watch horrors		(watch) comedy
He	prefers
It

I prefer to read books rather than(read) magazines.
I prefer to read books than (read) magazines.

He prefer to sleep on the floor rather than(sleep) in a bed.
He prefers to sleep on the floor than (sleep) in the bed.

Interrogative sentences with the verb prefer in English

To ask a person what he prefers, we use do/does auxiliary verbs depending on the actor.

1. Compare two items

Do/does + actor + prefer + one thing + to + another thing

	I
	you
Do	we		coffee		tea?
	they	prefer	dogs	to	cats?
	she		pencils		pens?
Does	he
	it

Do you prefer apples to pears?
Do you prefer apples to pears?

Does she prefer roses to daisies?
Does she prefer roses to daisies?

2. Compare two actions

Do/does + actor + prefer + action ending -ing + to + action ending -ing

	I
	you
Do	we		eating		drinking?
	they	prefer	walking	to	driving?
	she		reading		watching?
Does	he
	it

Do they prefer writing letters to calling a phone?
Do they prefer to write letters than to make phone calls?

Does he prefer taking out the garbage to do the laundry?
Does he prefer taking out the trash than doing the laundry?

3. Compare two actions and different objects

Do/does + actor + prefer + to action + rather than + action

	I
	you
Do	we		to eat sweets		(eat) vegetables?
	they	prefer	to live in a flat	rather than	(live) in a house?
	she		to watch horrors		(watch) comedy?
Does	he
	it

Do you prefer to drink milk rather than tea?
Do you prefer to drink milk than tea?

Does she prefer to work at home rather than at the office?
Does she prefer to work at home than in the office?

Using would prefer in English

We use would prefer most often when talking about preferences not in general, but about what you would prefer in specific situation. Also would makes this phrase more polite. To make a sentence with would prefer, we use the same constructions as with prefer.

1. Compare two items

Actor+ would prefer + one thing + to + another thing

I would prefer water to tea.
I would prefer water to tea.

She would prefer a backpack to a bag.
She would have preferred a backpack to a bag.

2. Compare two actions

Actor+ would prefer + action ending -ing + to + action ending -ing

She would prefer reading the book to shopping.
She would rather read a book than go shopping.

They would prefer sleeping to working.
She would rather sleep than work.

3. Compare two actions

Actor + would prefer + to action + rather than + action

We would prefer to eat at home rather than eat at the restaurant.
We would rather eat at home than in a restaurant.

He would prefer to dance alone rather than with her.
He would rather dance alone than with her.

So, today we have figured out how to speak about your preferences in English using the verbs prefer and would prefer. And now let's consolidate the theoretical knowledge in practice.

Reinforcement task

Translate the following sentences into English. Leave your answers in the comments.

1. She prefers to travel by train than by plane.
2. We prefer to pay by card than pay by cash.
3. Do you prefer red wine to white?
4. They prefer to live in the country than live in the city.
5. He would rather watch football than fix the TV.
6. Does she prefer skating than skiing?
7. They would prefer mineral water to juice.
8. Does he prefer hockey to football?

Static verbs describe states and are rarely used in long tenses.

Verbsfeelings

love, hate, like, dislike, hate, enjoy, adore…

I love chocolate ice cream - I lovechocolateice cream

Ienjoygoingtoparties - I like to go to parties

Verbspreferences

want, need, prefer, fit, need, require, wish, hope, keep(= continue)…

This dress fits you perfectlydressyouVmosttime

I hope to see you this weekend - I hopeseeyouonweekend

mentalVerbs

think, suppose, expect, believe, understand, realize, remember, forget, notice, recognize, matter, mean, know, define, repeat, state, relate, discuss, describe, recognize, explain, express, identify, review, match, translate, paraphrase, judge, revise, see(= to understand)…

I expect they'll be late - It is necessarythink, Theylate

Ithinkhe'slying - In my opinion, he is lying

I see what you mean - I understandyou

Verbsperception

You look / are looking great today - YouTodayawesome

English Joke

When a certain officer of the governor's staff died, there were many applicants for the post, and some were indecently impatient. While the dead colonel was awaiting burial, one aspirant buttonholed the governor, asking:

"Would you object to my taking the place of the colonel?"

"Not at all," the governor replied tartly. See the undertaker.

Mode of preference and its expression in the semantic structure of the word and its sentence (on the material of the English language)

Preference statements are considered in linguistics as modal statements based on axiological judgments of comparison and choice. In their structure, we find the words “better”, “more useful”, “beautiful” and so on. They express a situation in which the subject is faced with the choice of one of two or more alternatives. This article is devoted to the study of the preference mode, an invariant logical-semantic structure that determines specific models of preference verbalization in language forms. It should be noted that in all the variety of preferential contexts, the logical form of preference remains the same and practically unchanged. Being thus a transparent deep structure, it helps to identify this modality in the general semantics of the text. To the logical form of preference N.D. Arutyunova relates the expression of a value comparison of objects or situations, their comparison and opposition according to certain characteristics, and the choice made on the basis of these operations. In the text, the mode of preference can be supplemented by the expression of various shades of the emotional-volitional sphere of the speaker, revealing his attitude to the object of preference, and it can also be included in other connections and relationships - causal, conditional, target, and so on. Choice and preference, therefore, always turn out to be determined by the final goals and the specific conditions of the situation. In our study, we adhere to a broad understanding of the modality of preference as a personalizing semantics, not only presented in finished form in the meanings of specific language units, but also generated by their various combinations in the text. In all the variety of lexical and grammatical means of expressing the modality of preference, it is necessary to single out those units in which the modality of preference is presented in a collapsed form, the so-called logical preference operators. These are English verbs prefer, choose, pick, select, favour, adjectives favorite, most suitable, nouns preference, hobby. This also includes syntactic constructions such as it is better, had better, would rather, union rather than, and some others. It should be noted that we unite these linguistic units not at the individual content level (the semantic structures of these units are different), but at the functional, modal level, abstracting from their individual differences. In the text, the function of each of these words includes an indication of the choice of one object by excluding others. For example:

And the girl was the opposite of any girl she would ever have picked for David. She was plain, mousy and bespectacled.

Her favorite walk, and where she frequently went while the others were calling on Lady Catherine, was along the open grove which edged that side of the park, where there was a nice sheltered path, which no one seemed to value but herself, and where she felt beyond the reach of Lady Catherine's curiosity.

In this sentence, the logical form of preference is supplied with additional information about the object of preference, these are various kinds of characteristics - where she frequently went, along the open grove, a nice sheltered path, which no one seemed to value but herself. This kind of descriptive information not only enriches the semantics of preference, but also transforms it, colors it with additional subjective meanings.

The ability to convey the situation of preference in the text in all its multidimensionality characterizes the above lexical and grammatical units, determines the frequency of their use. A feature of these units and their derivatives (preference, choice, favorite) as modalized words is their autonomy, that is, the absence of strict semantic restrictions on compatibility, the free formation of collocation links with words expressing the categorization of the object of preference. This is evidenced by the data of dictionaries. Here are some examples of how the adjective favorite can be combined with nouns from the Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners and from the Longman dictionary of contemporary English:

• 1. His favorite pastimes were hunting and golf.
• 2. What's your favorite food?
• 3. Stephen King is one of my favorite writers.
• 4. Who's your favorite actor?
• 5. I "ll take you to my favorite restaurant tomorrow.

This adjective only appears in one set expression in American English: favorite son (a politician, sports player, etc. who is popular with people in the area that they come from). As can be seen from the examples given, the words combined with this adjective do not represent a general class. Their compatibility with the adjective favorite is due to the fact that each of these words represents in the mind of the speaker a certain thematic area (concept), a set of objects from which a choice is made. Thus, in the examples given, the nouns defined by the adjective favourite specify the area of ​​preference, and do not designate a single item.

For example:

My favorite opera singer (concept) is Pavarotti (specific person, performer).

My favorite football player (concept) is Marco van Basten (specific person, player).

In sentences like This is my favorite dress, the noun is also used non-referentially, the structure this is points to a specific object of preference. Unlike the adjective favourite, the verb to favour, the participle favored and the noun favouritism can have a negative connotation in the sentence. To favor (in one of the values) = to show preference or to give an advantage to smb in an unfair way.

For example:

He was accused of showing favoritism to particular students.

Like modal words and verbs, preference operators prefer, choose, pick, favor, suit serve to convey subjective information, to express the speaker's point of view, his attitude to the surrounding objects of reality. Priority properties attributed to objects and phenomena of reality in the modality of preference do not characterize things “in themselves”, that is, they are not ontologically inherent in them. These properties can be called interactive, since they can change depending on the nature of the dialogue between a person and the surrounding world.

They characterize objects and situations in the dynamics of their situational variability, since at different times different and even opposite sides of things may turn out to be preferable. According to M.Ya. Bloch, the modality of preference reveals the creative individuality of a person, his psychological characteristics, evaluative models of perception, stereotypes of behavior, goals, intentions.

Thus, the modality of preference is the core of subjective modality, a system of personality-oriented concepts (concepts), through which a person carries out mental and subject-practical activity.

In most of the cases analyzed, the mode of preference is represented in the text by the specific content of the lexical and grammatical units given in the article, it can also be in the logical form of a preferential statement, revealed on the basis of syntactic (positional) or semantic (meaningful) opposition of its parts.

This is achieved through the use of: 1) complex sentences, parts of which are united at the constructive level by unions or, or else, otherwise, rather than, instead of; 2) comparative constructions with adjectives; 3) various kinds of antonymic constructions that reveal oppositions at the level of lexical meanings.

Here are some examples:

And it was not altogether a wish to get Sir Alfred out of the office, although he was a man whose absence was usually preferable to his presence - the use of antonyms, opposition at the level of lexical meanings.

He had started off from his City flat before London was stirring, and instead of taking the direct route to Monksmere through Ipswich, he had struck north at Chelmsford to enter Suffolk at Sudbury , opposition at the level of the syntactic construction of the sentence.

You "ve no idea, Garry, old man, how disgustingly and indecently rich that woman is. She lives in Kensington on an income which would do her well in Park Lane. But she steadfastly refuses to part. This example shows that the heroine prefers Kensington, contrary to the common sense of the speaker, who would have preferred Park Lane in her place.The mode of preference is explicated in this sentence solely by the contextual opposition of the names of the two realities Kensington and Park Lane.

Based on text analysis and analysis of dictionary entries, we came to the conclusion that preference is a content-heterogeneous semantic sphere, it is expressed by various language units and their combinations, which inevitably introduce new modal meanings into the content of the sentence. In this regard, it is difficult to consider the modality of preference “in its pure form”, in isolation from other subjective-modal and emotional meanings. The term “preference” covers such a system of human relations to the world around, in which tastes, hobbies, principles and beliefs, worldview attitudes of a person are revealed.

Despite the indicated complexity, in this article we tried, on the basis of a generalization of the English-language material, to identify the logical-semantic structure of preference verbalization, that is, to show general cognitive-linguistic models of preference expression through various lexico-grammatical and syntactic means of the language. It should be noted that preference is realized on the basis of various logical (mental) operations performed by a person at the time of making a decision. This is, first of all, comparison, opposition, inclusion, exclusion of options, consideration of the situation from different angles, forecasting the consequences, evaluating the benefits of a particular decision, and many others. A problem situation external to a person is instantly processed by logical forms and verbalized in inner speech. In external speech, the speaker not only expresses a specific preference, but also demonstrates his attitude to the statement, his emotional state, argues in favor of a particular decision, defends his position. As can be seen from our reasoning, we adhere to a broad understanding of preference as a modality that encompasses not only the subjective-taste characteristics of the individual, but also situations that require an objectively rational solution.

preference text word language

Literature

• 1. Arutyunova N.D. Axiology in the mechanisms of language life / Problems of structural linguistics. M., 1984.
• 2. Bloch M.Ya. Theoretical foundations of grammar. M., 2004.
• 3. Kubryakova E.S. The nominative aspect of speech activity. M., 2007.
• 4. Austen J. Pride and prejudice.
• 5. Duncan Lois Killing Mr. Griffin.
• 6. James P. D. Death in holy orders.
• 7. James P. D. Unnatural causes.
• 8. Longman dictionary of contemporary English.
• 9. Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners.