kazm.cdr Emphatic Constructions in English Scientific Prose The present article aims to analyse the use of emphaticconstructions (the emphatic “do” in particular) in English scientific prose. Scholars are not unanimous in considering the role of expressive means and stylistic devices in scientific prose. The language of science like scientific research itself is characterized as impersonal, objective and rational. Therefore, it has been assumed by some linguists that the language means used in this functional style should also tend to be objective, precise, unemotional and devoid of any subjective impact. For example, O. A. Krilov states that scientific prose style is characterized by zero emotional and expressive colouring. Other linguists like R.A. Budagov, N.M. Razinkina, S.S. Gusev and S.K. Gasparyan, ect. assert that different stylistic devices are available in the language of science. We support the latter assertion. Having analyzed a number of scientific texts, we have arrived at the conclusion that the language of science is rich in different stylistic devices which bear elements of expressiveness and impact on the reader. It has been stated that the main function of scientific prose is that of delivering intellective information. This is the primary, but not the only function of scientific style, since the specific character of the language of science presupposes the use of a much wider and richer range of linguistic means. Very often, along with the objective conceptual content of the scientific text, the author’s individuality can be definitely present. In other words, besides conveying intellective information such texts realize the communicative function and that of impact too. These functions are realized due to different emotional-expressive means and stylistic devices (lexical and syntactical). As has been mentioned above, our article touches upon some problems concerning the use of syntactical stylistic devices (the emphatic “do” in particular) in the language of science. Constructions with emphatic “do” are used to emphasize the verb. This emphatic effect is attained by putting the auxiliary “do” before the predicate. According to D.E. Rozental’s definition, emphasis in such constructions qualifies speech with tension and is expressed through intonation, repetition, word order and so on.6 In the dictionary of linguistic terms by O.S. Akhmanova the emphatic mood is defined as different kinds of lexical-semantic and lexical-morphological means of emphasizing the utterance, very often accompanied by emphatic intonation.7 Our study of a large number of scientific texts allows us to state that emphatic constructions are most widely used syntactical stylistic devices in the language of 68 Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics Siranush Vardanyan science too. Here are some examples: A large part of the translation problem is thereby solved, for the logician can now relate his representations of logical form to these underlying structures, which do bear some consistent relationship to the meaning of the sentences. (J.D. Fodor, p. 208) As has already been pointed out, if the message is in the language we do not know we can go no further in the process of decoding although our ears are exposed to the same sound waves as those of a listener who does know the language. (D.B. Fry, p. 31) In these examples, the use of the emphatic constructions is more or less restricted to their function of accentuating and emphasizing the verb. Thus, in the first example, the author attaches great significance to the consistence of the so called real structure with the meaning of the sentence. In the second example, the use of the emphatic ‘do’ accentuates the meaning of the verb “to know“, as well as the fact that, without knowing the language, we can never understand the message despite hearing the same sound waves. The use of the emphatic constructions in the following examples, besides emphasizing, also distinctly shows the author’s personal attitude towards the utterance. We do not consciously hear all the fine variations in particular pronunciations that a modern phonetician’s machinery can measure. We sometimes ignore what we do hear, reinterpreting it in terms of an expected pattern. Such variant pronunciations as ‘Empire Stape Building’ or ‘Hybe Park’ are common in rapid speech, and are so much part of our language, that they are taught to foreign learners to eliminate the over-precise flavour that a foreigner’s speech often has, but few speakers of English are aware that they make these adjustments technically called assimilation. (G.W. Turner, p.11) The author agrees that it is impossible for us, foreigners, to hear all the fine articulational variations of speech. Nevertheless, speaking about non-obligatory assimilation, he criticizes the way we ignore what we do hear. In the following example J.D. Fodor doubts whether a logician can succeed in characterizing some of the logical properties of a natural language even if he sets about defining it. Furthermore, even when a logician does set about characterizing some of the logical properties of a natural language, he may well go only a short way with this and devote most of his time and attention to the philosophical implications of the system he has constructed… (J.D. Fodor, p.205) 69 Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika The use of the emphatic constructions intensifies the emotional and expressive colouring of the author’s speech, thus emphasizing his ideas of the logical and philosophical implications of natural human language. In some cases when the emphatic “do” is used in combination with other stylistic devices and expressive means, reciprocity in influence is observable. Words do have a magical effect but not in the way that the magicians supposed and on the objects they were trying to influence. (G.S.Lewis, p.38) In this example the metaphor “words have a magical effect” is intensified with the help of the emphatic ‘do’. The two stylistic devices are interlaced and the author’s personality can be distinctly seen from behind this lace. Combining the two stylistic devices, the author expresses his personal attitude towards the utterance. He accepts the fact that words have some enchanting effect and at the same time stresses that magical effect in words is not the same as that assumed by magicians. In the following example the effect created due to the emphatic “do” is intensified by the use of the metonymy ‘in Mr. Pearson’. In this example the meaning would be neither more nor less clear if the brackets were taken out. But in fact the writer does require or imply a kind of parenthesis exemplifying the quality of tellingness in Mr. Pearson. (G.H. Vallins, p. 130) Here is another example, where the emphatic “do” is combined with other stylistic devices. The schoolmaster has always been hard on the exclamation mark; and the result is that most of us fight shy of it even when it is not merely desirable but necessary. Perhaps, however, his objection implied that though we could exclaim in speech, we should not exclaim in writing – except now and then with a few old trusted friends like Hurrah!,Oh! and Alas! That is why when we do exclaim on paper we are so ashamed of it, that we try to pass off the exclamation as a statement. (G.H. Vallins, p.139) Besides the emphatic “do” and the metaphors “to exclaim on paper”, “to exclaim in writing”, we come across cases of personification - “old trusted friends like Hurrah! Oh! and Alas!”, which, as we know, is less characteristic of the language of science. The accumulation of stylistic devices and, particularly, the use of personification makes the author’s idea more vivid as he does not simply state the fact but expresses his subjective 70 Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics attitude towards the utterance. In doing so, the author goes even further and urges the reader to accept his viewpoint and agree with him. Thus, our analysis of the stylistic functioning of the emphatic “do” in the language of English scientific prose proves the validity of the assertion that different stylistic devices are widely used in the language of science. We can also conclude that the use of the emphatic “do” is not restricted to its emphatic, expressive function. Very often the author’s personality comes out quite clearly. The use of emphatic constructions with “do”, not infrequently expresses the author’s personal attitude towards the utterance. In the majority of cases these constructions become an inseparable part of the language of scientific narration and when combined with other stylistic devices and expressive means they realize the function of impact thus making the author’s writing more influential and persuasive. References: 1. Êðûëîâ Î.À. Îñíîâû ôóíêöèîíàëüíîé ñòèëèñòèêè ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà. Ì., 1978, ñ.129. 2. Áóäàãîâ Ð.À. Ëèòåðàòóðíûå ÿçûêè è ÿçûêîâûå ñòèëè. Ì., Âûñø.øê.,1976. 3. Ðàçèíêèíà Í.Ì. Ðàçâèòèå ÿçûêà àíãëèéñêîé íàó÷íîé ëèòåðàòóðû (ëèíãâîïîýòè÷åñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ). Ì., Íàóêà, 1968. 4. Ãóñåâ Ñ.Ñ. Íàóêà è ìåòàôîðà. Ë., 1984. 5. Ãàñïàðÿí Ñ.Ê. Ôèãóðà ñðàâíåíèÿ â ôóíêöèîíàëüíîì îñâåùåíèè. Åðåâàí, Èçä- âî Åðåâàíñêîãî Óíèâåðñèòåòà, 2000. 6. Ðîçåíòàëü Ä.Ý., Òåëåíêîâà Ì.À. Ñëîâàðü - ñïðàâî÷íèê ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèõ òåðìèíîâ. Ìîñêâà, 1985, ñòð.394. 7. Àõìàíîâà Î.Ñ. Ñëîâàðü ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèõ òåðìèíîâ. Ìîñêâà, 1966, ñòð 250. Sources of Data: 1. Fodor J.D. Formal Linguistic and Formal Logic. // New Horizons in Linguistics. / Ed. by J.Lyons. England, 1970. 2. Fry D.B. Speech Reception and Perception. // New Horizons in Linguistics. / Ed. by J.Lyons. England, 1970. 3. Lewis G.S. Bluspels and Flalansferes. // The Importance of Language. / Ed. by M.Black. Englewood, 1962. 4. Turner G.W. Stylistics. Middlesex, England, 1973. 5. Vallins G.H. Better English. London, 1963. 71 Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika ÞºÞîì²Ì βèàôÚòܺðÆ ¶àð̲ÌàôÂÚàôÜÀ ²Ü¶ÈºðºÜ ¶Æî²Î²Ü ²ðÒ²ÎàôØ Ðá¹í³ÍÁ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ ¿ ·Çï³Ï³Ý É»½íáõÙ ß³ñ³ÑÛáõë³Ï³Ý á×³Ï³Ý ÑݳñÝ»ñÇ û·ï³·áñÍÙ³Á í»ñ³μ»ñáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: Þ³ñ³ÑÛáõë³Ï³Ý á×³Ï³Ý ÑݳñÝ»ñÇ Ù»Í ÃíÇó ÁÝïñí³Í »Ý ß»ßïí³Í “do”-áí ݳ˳¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: Þ»ßïí³Í “do”-áí μ³½Ù³ÃÇí ûñÇݳÏÝ»ñÁ ³Ý·É»ñ»Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý ³ñÓ³ÏáõÙ, ѳëï³ïáõÙ »Ý è.². ´áõ¹³·áíÇ, ê.ê. ¶áõë¨Ç, Ü.Ø. è³½ÇÝÏÇݳÛÇ, ê.ø. ¶³ë- å³ñÛ³ÝÇ åݹáõÙÝ»ñÝ ³ÛÝ Ù³ëÇÝ, áñ Ù»Í ù³Ý³ÏáõÃÛ³Ùμ ï³ñμ»ñ á×³Ï³Ý ÑݳñÝ»ñ »Ý û·ï³·áñÍíáõÙ ·Çï³Ï³Ý É»½íáõÙ: Þ»ßïí³Í “do”-Ý ³Ý·É»ñ»Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý ³ñÓ³ÏáõÙ ãÇ ë³Ñٳݳ÷³ÏíáõÙ ÙdzÛÝ ¿Ùý³ïÇÏ, ³ñï³Ñ³Ûïã³- Ï³Ý ·áñͳéáõÛÃáí: Þ³ï Ñ³×³Ë ³Û¹ ûñÇݳÏÝ»ñáõÙ μ³í³Ï³Ý ³ÏÝѳÛï »ñ¨áõÙ ¿ Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÇ ³Ýѳï³Ï³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ú·ï³·áñÍ»Éáí ß»ßïí³Í “do”-áí ϳéáõÛóÝ»ñÁ Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÁ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÙ ¿ Çñ í»ñ³μ»ñÙáõÝùÁ ³ëí³ÍÇ Ýϳï- Ù³Ùμ: ²Û¹ ϳéáõÛóÝ»ñÁ Ñ³×³Ë ¹³éÝáõÙ »Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý É»½íÇ ³Ýμ³Å³Ý»ÉÇ Ù³ë: гٳÏóí³Í ³ÛÉ á×³Ï³Ý ÑݳñÝ»ñÇ ¨ ³ñï³Ñ³Ûïã³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï` ¹ñ³Ýù, Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝ»Éáí Ý»ñ·áñÍÙ³Ý ·áñͳéáõÛÃ, û·ÝáõÙ »Ý Ñ»ÕÇݳ- ÏÇÝ ³½¹»É ÁÝûñóáÕÇ íñ³: 72 Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics