You always waste) .
(4) She is continually imagining dangers when they do not exist. (She is imagining = she imagines).
(5) June read: Lake Okanagen. British Columbia, I'm not coming back to England. Bless you always. - John. (Galsworthy) (I'm not coming == I shall not come) .
(6) Fleur huddled her chin in her fur. It was easterly and cold. A voice behind her said: Well, Fleur, am I going East? (Galsworthy) Cf. Am I going East? = Shall I go East?
Conclusion
В
In this essay we have tried to prove that although ideational content is certainly an important aspect of linguistic communication, it is a mistake to regard clarity of referential meaning as a master skill, in two ways. First it is an error to assume that all other words serve at the pleasure of communicating speaker's intended semantic reference; and second, it is an error to assume that all meaningful linguistic action has clarity of referential meaning as its central goal, or that only messages with clear referential content are in some sense communicative. Polysemy, ambiguity, synonymy often helps achieve a communicational goal.
No doubt this strikes many readers as obvious. And yet, while we might say that in the Western intellectual tradition they have always been recognized as an inevitable feature of natural languages, we might say with more conviction that they have usually been recognized as a problem. Sometimes they break clear transmission of thought from a speaker to an audience and only undermine meaning.
But we propose two things: first, that ambiguity may in fact be productive of understanding and not simply destructive of it; and second, that what we take as discourse forms transparent to their ideational referents often are not. This approach calls for reconsidering what we might mean when we speak of "understanding." Usually, understanding is taken to mean recognition of the cognitive content of an utterance. We might well supplement this with a less technical idea which, at the moment, we can only call "getting it."
When we think about linguistic communication as a multi-channel embodied participatory experience, our focus shifts to features of contextualized practice that are multimodal, multivocal, and lean more heavily on non-propositional features of communication-features that have complicated relationships to the preservation or presentation of clear referential content. The general sense in the Western tradition has been that words organize propositional content into more pleasing form-"good ideas, well expressed," the melding of form and content. But perhaps expressions work independently of propositionality, sometimes aiding, sometimes undermining, sometimes stepping into the breach where propositionality finds itself at a loss for words.
Literature
В
1. Арнольд І.В. Лексикологія сучасної англійської мови.: підручник для ін-тів і фак. іноз. мови. - 3-е видання, перероб і доп. - М.: Вища школа, 1986. - 295с.
2. Блох М.Я. Теоретична граматика англійської мови.: Підручник для студентів філол.фак. ун-тів і фак .. англ.яз. педвузов.-М.: Вища школа, 1983. - 383.
3. Ільїн Б.Я.. Строй сучасного англійської мови.: Підручник за курсом теор.грамматікі для студ. педаго. Інститутів. - Видання друге. - Л.: Просвещение, 1971.-365с. p> 4. Каушенський Л.В. Граматика англійської мови.: Підручник для студ. пед.інстітутов. - 4-е видання. - К.: Просвітництво, 1973. - 319с. p> 5. Раєвська Н.М.. Теоретична граматика сучасної англійської мови.: Для студентів факультетів романо-германської філології університетів і педагогічних інститутів іноземних мов (англійською мовою).-К.: Вища школа, 1976. - 383с.
6. David Samuels. The agenda of ambiguity in expressive culture. - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
