ПОРІВНЯЛЬНІ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКИ КОНСТРУКЦІЙ «CAN/COULD + INFINITIVE» ТА «MAY/MIGHT + INFINITIVE» (НА МАТЕРІАЛІ ТЕКСТІВ НАУКОВОГО ДИСКУРСУ)

T. I. Borisenko; M. V. Tsinovaya; E. B. Grodskaya

doi:10.26661/2414-1135-2021-81-1-6

T. I. Borisenko http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9839-1761
M. V. Tsinovaya http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2633-8416
E. B. Grodskaya http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1122-2878

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2021-81-1-6

Keywords: frequency of usage, lexical layer, model, coincidence, functional substitute, modal meaning

Abstract

The article considers the grammatical, lexical-semantic and statistical characteristics of the modal constructions with “may/might + infinitive” and “can/could + infinitive” for their further comparison. The material for the work was the text corpora of the technical specialties “Heat Engineering”, “Electrical Engineering” and “Automotive Industry”. They have been compiled on the basis of scientific journal articles referred to the relevant fields of knowledge published in the UK and USA. The total volume was 300 thousand tokens. The most frequent constructions with the verbs ‘may/might’ were the models with the second constituent in the infinitive in the active voice – ‘may V’ which in total frequency represents more than half of all constructions with the active infinitive in the second constituent. The verbs ‘can/could’ – the highest priority is possessed by the verb constructions which have the forms of the passive infinitive. The most frequent is the model ‘can be Ven’ which also covers more than half the total frequency of all ‘can/could’ models. So along with completely different grammatical characteristics in the constructions with ‘may/might’ and ‘can/could’ they (constructions) possess statistical coincidences, besides there are lexical and stylistic coincidences in the second constituents of modal constructions – they (constituents) belong to the same lexical layers – common and general scientific. In the constructions that are in the second place in terms of frequency of usage one can also observe certain coincidences. The second as to the frequency usage in the texts in constructions with the modal verb ‘may/might’ are the models in which the second constituent is used in the passive voice (33% of the total frequency of all models with this verb), and the most high-frequency construction is the model ‘may be Ven’. In the modal constructions with ‘can/could’ on the second place appears the ones where the infinitive occurs in the active voice and again with 33% of the total frequency of all the models with this verb. Thus the set of grammatical patterns with both modal verbs is absolutely identical. In the less frequent constructions the second constituents for the most part also belong to the common and general scientific layers. A detailed review of the examples has showed that the basic meaning for both verbs is “ability to do something”. The coincidence of all of the above characteristics in constructions with the modal verbs ‘may/might’ and ‘can/could’ allows to come to the conclusions that the verbs ‘can’ and ‘may’ in them can be functional substitutes and be used in the text corpora of scientific discourse in the same function.

References

1. Bernardini S. A linguistic typology of American television programs. URL: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk (дата звернення: 02.02.2021).
2. Demyanov V.Z. Cognitive linguistics as a kind of interpretive approach. Linguistics issues : Collection of scientific works. Moscow : AS USSR, 1994. № 4. P. 17–33.
3. Fillmore Ch. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Origin and Development of Language and Speech. New York : AS, 1976. Vol. 280. P. 20–32.
4. Miller G.A. Images and Models, Similes and Metaphors. Metaphor and Thought / In A. Ortony (Ed.). Cambridge : Cambridge Unibersity Press, 1993. Р. 357–400.
5. Kubryakova E.S. The initial stages of the formation of cognitivism: linguistics, psychology, cognitive science. Linguistics issues : Collection of scientific works. Moscow : AS USSR, 1994. № 4. Р. 34–47.
6. Беляева З.Ф. Сравнительный анализ модальных глагольных сочетаний в американской научно-технической и художественной литературе : дисс. … канд. филол. наук : 10.02.04. Омск, 1973. 191 с.
7. Umatova M.B. Comparative analysis of modal verbs in the English and Uzbek languages. Young scientist : Collection of scientific works. Kherson : Publishing House “Helvetica”, 2014. № 7. Р. 641–642.
8. Hornby A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005. 1539 p.
9. Вдовина М.В. Взаимодействие категорий модальности, времени и вида в английских предложениях с модальными глаголами) : автореф. дисс. … канд. филол. наук : 10.02.04. Санкт-Петербург, 2012. 22 с.

COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS “CAN/COULD + INFINITIVE” AND “MAY/MIGHT + INFINITIVE” (ON THE MATERIAL OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE TEXTS)

Abstract

References