Строй современного английского языка
Download 1.77 Mb.
|
| Grammar and Style 857
Here we must first of all mention the form ain't pronounced [eint], or ain [ein] of the verb be, corresponding to the forms am not, is not, and are not of the stylistically neutral set. The essence of all of them is, of course, that the combination of a verb form with the negative particle not differs from the same form without the particle. The difference between am not, is not, and are not is in these cases neutralised. So this whole question also has some bearing on the categories of person and number in the verb be. The stylistic tinge of the form ain't is a very definite one: it is low colloquial with a clear tendency towards vulgarity, and of course it would be inadmissible in any serious literary style. Here are some examples: The house aint worth livin in since you left it Candy. (SHAW, Burgess's speech in "Candida") Our quarrel's made up now, ain it? (Idem) James and me is come to a nunnerstanding — a honorable unnerstandin. Ain we, James? (Idem) A similar stylistic character attaches to the forms has, is, and was for the plural, e. g. Yes: limes 'as changed mor 'n I could a believed. (Idem) I hused to wonder you was let preach at all. (Idem) As the verb be is an auxiliary of the continuous aspect and of the passive voice, the form ain't can accordingly appear in every verb possessing either of these categories, or both, e. g. Ope you ain't lettin James put no foolish ideas into your ed? (Idem) Besides, a certain number of verbs have, alongside of their normal and neutral forms, some special ones, differing from the usual by a distinct archaic or solemn colouring, e. g. spake for spoke (past tense of the verb speak); throve for thrived (past tense of the verb thrive); bare for bore (past tense of the verb bear). In the opposite way, there are some forms having at present a very distinct vulgar or illiterate stylistic character and only used in writing to characterise an illiterate speaker. They are forms of the past tense and second participle on -ed of verbs regularly deriving these forms by ablaut (vowel change) or by adding the -n-suffix for the second participle, e. g. seed for saw (past tense) or seen (second participle of the verb see); knowed for knew (past tense) or known (second participle of the verb know). These forms are distinctly illiterate and in this they differ from the form ain't, for instance, which is somehow within the standard, though certainly at the lowest level of it. It would seem that no verb has archaic and vulgar variants at the same time, that is, no verb has three variants: the normal one, an archaic one, and an illiterate one. For instance, the verb speak has an archaic variant spake for its past tense spoke but it has no illiterate variant; on the other hand, the verb see has an illiterate variant seed for its past tense saw but it has no archaic variant, etc. 358 Conclusion Some peculiarities in the sphere of stylistically coloured verb forms should also be noted in American English. The chief of these concerns forms of the present perfect tense. In low colloquial American style there is a very clear tendency to drop the auxiliary have (has) in the present perfect, so that only the second participle remains. Now, if the second participle is homonymous with the past tense, as is the case with most verbs, the result of the omission is a form not to be distinguished from the past tense, for instance, I have found > I found. If, however, the second participle is not homonymous with the past tense, the result of omitting the auxiliary is a new form, not coinciding with the usual past tense: I have taken > I taken, he has written > he written, etc. We may see this in the following quotation from an American author representing low colloquial speech: I been around to see her a coupla times since then, only Esta didn't want me to say anything about that either. (DREISER) However, such forms may also be found in England, e. g. James: three year ago, you done me a hill turn. You done me hout of a contrac. (SHAW, Burgess's speech) H. L. Mencken, the author of the well-known book, "The American language" (first published in 1919), treats such forms as I taken, he written as a past tense. He also asserts that with the auxiliary have preserved, the form of the second participle is took, wrote, etc., so that the British paradigms take, took, taken; write, wrote, written correspond to the American take, taken, took; write, written, wrote, and gives a list of irregular verbs arranged in this way. 1 Mencken's view appears to be an exaggeration not borne out by American narrative and dramatic literature. I taken is common enough in American colloquial style, but I have took does not appear to be so. It is clear that forms like I taken have a stylistic tinge but their peculiarity is that they hardly appear outside the USA. This is about all that can be said about stylistic values of morphological forms in present-day English. Syntax
In the sphere of syntax we have to look for syntactical synonyms differing from each other by their stylistic colouring. We may look for two sets of cases: (1) each of the two syntactical synonyms has a peculiar stylistic colouring of its own, (2) of two syntactical synonyms one is stylistically neutral, that is, it may appear in every sort of style, while the other has a distinct stylistic colouring, that is to say, its use is limited to definite stylistic conditions. 1 See H. L. Mencken, The American Language, 3rd ed., 1929, pp. 279—283. |