Semantic agreement example. The law of semantic agreement. Theoretical Foundations of the Philological Analysis of a Literary Text in the National Pedagogical University
The concept of V.G. Gaka
According to V.G. Gaku, the compatibility of a word directly depends on its lexical meaning. The possibility or impossibility of combining words into a syntagma is determined by the presence or absence of a common seme in them - syntagmemes. Within the framework of the concept of syntagmatic interaction of meanings, V.G. Gak, the following laws are distinguished that regulate the behavior of syntagmes during the formation of syntagmas:
1) The law of syntagmatic agreement. In order for two words to be able to make the correct combination, it is necessary that in the meaning of these words - both semantically dependent and semantically dominant, there should be one common seme. This general seme (syntagmeme) in this case acts as a formal means of organizing the utterance at the semantic level. V.G. Gak notes that the repetition of semes causes a certain semantic redundancy, "which, however, contributes to noise immunity" .
2) Law of semantic inconsistency. For the purposes of semantic economy, the common seme in one of the members of the syntagma can be omitted, but this is possible only "in the case of stable subject relations." For example, we can say the snake is coming, the bird is coming, instead of the snake is crawling, the bird is flying[ibid].
3) Law of semantic mismatch is based on the fact that word compatibility is influenced not only by proper linguistic, but also by extralinguistic factors. The presence in the elements of the syntagma of semes that are incompatible from the point of view of real relations leads to the fact that either one word has an additional seme, or another word has an extra seme fading away. In both cases, "the compatibility of semanthemes is gradually restored, the disagreement turns into agreement or disagreement .... The seme (a) introduced into the second word turns into a syntagme, establishing semantic agreement. The transfer of a semantic component from one word to another leads to a contextual change in the meaning of the latter words. If both contextual meanings are fixed in a word, it becomes polysemantic" [Gak, 1998: 285]. In the event that one of the semes fades away, it remains implicit in the meaning of the word for a long time, on which metaphors or puns are usually built [ibid.].
In order for two words to form a correct phrase, one of the following conditions must be met:
1) these words must have one common seme;
2) the semes of one word should not contradict the semes of another word;
3) if the words have semes that contradict each other, then two options are possible: the redemption of one of the semes as part of one word, or the addition of a new seme to the composition of another word.
Therefore, the theory of V.G. Gaka consists in the presence of iterative (repeating semes) in the statement, which are an indispensable condition for any statement. The law of semantic agreement was a significant discovery of the theory created in the then new aspect of the study of language units - semantic syntagmatics.
With. 1
Semantic agreement as a manifestation of analyticism in grammar
Lavrik E.P.
The grammatical system of the modern Russian language tends to be analytical. This is an objective process of language development, due to its internal features, which researchers noted back in the middle of the twentieth century. So, in the well-known sociolinguistic study "Russian Language and Soviet Society", in the issue devoted to the Russian grammatical system, - "Morphology and Syntax of the Modern Russian Literary Language" edited by M.V. Panov (1968), there is already a tendency towards analyticism in morphology. The analytic manifestation of some morphological categories finds its structural and semantic expression in the syntactic system of the language.
“Analytic forms differ from synthetic ones in that their grammatical meaning is conveyed outside the limits of a given word, i.e. the function and meaning of these forms are revealed in context, in relation to other words. That is why proper morphological analyticism is closely intertwined with syntactic analyticism and becomes a common feature of grammar” [Valgina N.S. Active processes in modern Russian: A textbook for university students. - M.: Logos, 2001. - p.156]. One of such manifestations of analyticism in the Russian language was semantic agreement.
Speaking of agreement in this aspect, as a syntactic connection, we mean grammatical agreement in the “broad” sense, when agreement is understood not only as an assimilation in gender, number and case of the components of an attributive phrase, but also assimilation of other syntactic phrases built on this analogy. constructions: components of a predicative stem, semi-predicative construction, complex sentence, text.
The category of gender of nouns turned out to be the most susceptible to manifestations of analyticism, and first of all, these are those grammatical forms of animate nouns, which are the names of persons by profession. In animate nouns, generic meanings are a representation of the gender of the real person. Formal indicators of some meanings are the suffixes of "femininity": teacher - teacher, accountant - accountant, graduate student - graduate student, student - student. However, the set of pairs with such generic correlations in the Russian language is quite limited, and therefore the language chooses other means of conveying the real gender of a person - the expression of generic meanings in the sentence structure. The most common structural components that express generic meanings corresponding to the real gender of a person are agreed definitions or predicates.
It should be noted that the normative for naming persons by profession was the use of the masculine gender. This phenomenon has an extralinguistic nature, since initially all professions were “male”: doctor, teacher, engineer, general, accountant, lawyer, cook etc. To name female persons by profession, in a number of cases, marked lexemes were used, which had word-formation indicators, but they most often had a colloquial, reduced character: engineer, lifter, laboratory assistant, doctor:She ― musician , He ― Professor - economist, famous Later How father economic reforms Kosygin (Vasily Katanjan. Touching idols). Over time, when women began to be actively involved in the sphere of professional activity, lexical units of the grammatical masculine gender began to be actively used to name women: Economist, ― introduced herself Larisa , sitting down on retracted Farhadov chair (Semyon Danilyuk. Business Class);In the office, in addition to Mikhail Grigorievich, there was also the head teacher Sofya Yakovlevna (Ancharov M. Boxwood Forest); He knew everything in advance ... And about our head teacher too ... (Ancharov M. Boxwood forest).
However, for a certain period of time (during the period of the struggle for the emancipation of women), as well as for certain speech situations, it was relevant to emphasize the gender factor, and then constructions with semantic agreement began to be actively used in the language, in which semantics began to be emphasized by analytical means (means of the syntactic environment). gender of the person designated by profession: In conclusion, the speaker addressed the representatives of the media (Pravda, 1988, May 11)- an example from [Valgina N.S. Active processes in modern Russian: A textbook for university students. - M.: Logos, 2001. - p.156].
However, the choice of certain forms (based on grammatical or semantic agreement) is stylistically marked: colloquial speech, the language of modern media, gravitates towards semantic agreement, due to the fact that “the mass press of the late twentieth century, actively including colloquial elements in its language, prefers meaning of the form” [Valgina N.S., p. 162]. Thus, in the pursuit of analyticism, two tendencies were combined: the action of the internal laws of the language and social factors - the attitudes of the speakers to achieve understanding, the desire for semantic accuracy of the statement, expressed in the activation of analytical colloquial syntactic constructions: Fiona Hill (Fiona Hill),analystRussian Affairs from the Brookings Institution, said in connection with "Khodorkovsky's charitable work: "But there are still questions about his business practices and whether he really stopped being a robber baron and now wears a white hat" (Valery Lebedev. There are no rich angels in Russia // "Swan" (Boston), 2003.11.09) ; Doctor-resuscitator Yulia Titova of the Sklifosovsky Institute sided with the "offended" nurses: "All these increases are minuscule (Irina Podlesova. "All these increases - mizer" // "Izvestia", 2003.02.17);Studying the life of Chanel, Audrey learned that the future fashion designer was brought up in an orphanage near her native Beaumont (Lisa. Burda Publishing House, 2009, No. 29, July 13).
Being the most conservative, official business and scientific speech does not accept forms of semantic agreement and relies on the grammatical norm: IN her work accepted participation vice-rector State institute Russian language name A . WITH . Pushkin H . D . Burvikov , Professor Russian University friendship peoples WITH . A . Khavronin And Professor Moscow architectural institute A . AND . Nechaev . (In Roszarubezhtsentr (2004) // Diplomatic Bulletin, 2004.05.25).
In colloquial and everyday speech, the most common constructions of semantic agreement, as they allow you to make the statement more concrete, objective and accurate: The main thing is not to eat fatty foods - the doctor told me in secret (From a conversation);Borenka ! Ophthalmic doctor banned to me fall . Especially With railway wagons . At at ! (Andrey Malyukov, Vsevolod Ivanov. 34th ambulance, film (1981)). A Here my ophthalmic doctor… forbids to me work V circus . (Andrey Malyukov, Vsevolod Ivanov. 34th ambulance, film (1981)). [#2, female, 75] Verochka / Here Where - That recently / By - my V « Izvestia » / was Very good article How did operation / doctor Sciences saved eye . (Conversation about books and health // From the materials of the Saratov University, 1975) .
In addition to the statements that we recorded in colloquial speech and extracted from the National Corpus of the Russian Language, those statements that we recorded on Internet forums can also be classified as colloquial in terms of stylistic coloring: The doctor told me that in the lower jaw it is necessary to remove one tooth - a deuce, but in the upper jaw it is not necessary at all (www. woman. en); And the doctor wanted to prescribe Duphaston for me (www. woman. en).
Observations on the features of the use of grammatical and semantic agreement allow us to draw certain conclusions about the dynamics and quantitative assessment of the process of development of analyticism. We were faced with the task of considering the dependence of the choice of the type of agreement on the socio-age group of respondents, to find out the attitude of representatives of different strata in their everyday speech practice to different ways of designating females by type of activity, to establish the motives for choosing one or another type of agreement.
These studies when compared with similar indicators given in the monograph “The Russian language and Soviet society. Morphology and Syntax of the Modern Russian Literary Language (1968) will allow us to trace the dynamics of the development of semantic agreement.
During the study, 293 respondents were interviewed. The following questions were included in the questionnaire:
How would you say in relation to a woman:
-doctor prescribed or doctor prescribed;
- she is a good doctor or she good doctor.
Tables 1 and 2 present answers to questions from representatives of various social and age groups in 2009 (the study was conducted by the author of the article) and in 1968 (based on the monograph "The Russian language and Soviet society. Morphology and syntax of the modern Russian literary language") .
Table 1. (2009)
|
social group |
Answer options |
||||
|
Total Answered |
Doctor prescribed, % |
Doctor prescribed, % |
Good doctor, % |
Good doctor, % |
|
|
Employees with higher education |
42 |
28,57 |
71,43 |
97,62 |
2,38 |
|
|
14 |
60,00 |
40,00 |
97,60 |
2.40 |
|
workers |
38 |
47,83 |
52, 17 |
69, 57 |
30,43 |
|
Philology students |
24 |
50,00 |
50,00 |
91,67 |
8,33 |
|
Non-philology students |
18 |
33,33 |
66,67 |
66,67 |
33,33 |
|
pensioners |
23 |
54,55 |
45,45 |
54,55 |
45,45 |
|
pupils |
44 |
40,91 |
59,01 |
72,74 |
27,26 |
|
203 |
44,66 |
5,34 |
79,61 |
20,39 |
|
Table 2. (1968)
|
social group |
Answer options |
||||
|
Total Answered |
The doctor prescribed |
The doctor prescribed |
good doctor |
good doctor |
|
|
Non-philologist intellectuals |
791 |
42,20 |
48,10 |
87,4 |
9,6 |
|
Employees without higher education |
897 |
34,60 |
56,40 |
60,9 |
32,4 |
|
workers |
419 |
33,40 |
56,50 |
55,0 |
38,7 |
|
Philology students |
676 |
41,10 |
50,30 |
75,6 |
20,1 |
|
Non-philology students |
167 |
36,50 |
52,70 |
70,4 |
26,0 |
|
Total |
2950 |
38,6 |
51,70 |
69,9 |
25,0 |
As can be seen from Table 1, most of the respondents (55.34%) of the respondents prefer analytical means of expressing the gender, despite the violation of the rules of formal agreement. When comparing these indicators with the data of 1968, we will see that the percentage of those who prefer semantic agreement to formal has increased slightly (by 3.64%) and does not exceed the limits of acceptable statistical error. Of interest to us is the redistribution of indicators within each of the groups that occurred during this time period. The increase in preferences for semantic agreement occurred in the group of employees with higher education (by 23.33%) and students receiving non-philological education (by 13.97%).
Schoolchildren also choose forms of semantic agreement (an increase of 18.18%), despite a recent study of the school curriculum, which is guided by the recommendations of scientific grammars and allows only the masculine form of the verb.
At the same time, the majority of respondents approve the use of analytical forms of gender expression, pointing out the need to differentiate persons by gender in speech, as this “facilitates understanding”, makes communication simpler and more capacious. Some of the respondents allow the use of the verb in the feminine gender only in a certain situations: “if we are talking about a familiar specialist”, “if you don’t know a person, you need an agreement in the masculine gender”.
At the same time, it is characteristic that among other groups of respondents there is a large percentage of people who are dissatisfied with the existence of variants in the expression of the gender. These are, first of all, pensioners, as well as workers and employees with a secondary specialized education. The main arguments for maintaining the old norms are as follows:
- “this is illiterate, as it violates the rules of the Russian language”;
- “what will happen if everyone writes as they say and change the rules for themselves?”;
- “The word doctor is masculine, which means that both the verb and the adjective must be masculine, the masculine gender pulls the masculine.”
Thus, formal and semantic agreement exist in parallel in the language, formal agreement functions in "strict" styles of speech (scientific and official-business), giving way to semantic in colloquial styles and those close to them. The choice of one or another variant of coordination is largely determined by the specific speech situation, as well as the personal qualities of the speaker (age, education, etc.).
Literature
Valgina N.S. Active processes in modern Russian: A textbook for university students. - M .: Logos, 2001. - p.156
Ivanova Polina Sergeevna, student of Samara Social and Humanitarian University, Samara [email protected]
Syntagmatic relations of semes by semes in the form of comparisons
Annotation. The article deals with the image of comparison in a literary text on the example of N. Abgaryan's story "Manyunya". Syntagmatic relations are considered on the example of the relationship of semes by semes (according to the classification of VG Gak): semantic disagreement, semantic disagreement, semantic agreement. Semantic and grammatical types of lexical compatibility are revealed. Keywords: image of comparisons, N. Abgaryan's creativity, seme, sememe, syntagmatic relations.
Syntagmatic relations (Greek syntagma - together built, connected) are based on the linear nature of speech, this is a sequence of any linguistic elements that together form more complex units in speech. A sememe consists of many semantic features, fam. Seme is a component of meaning that reflects the distinctive feature of the denotation of a word (object, phenomenon, process) or the use of a word and is able to distinguish the meanings of words. linking becomes its main function. Syntagmas (combinations of words connected in meaning) can represent free or related combinations of words; the former are easily created and “crumble”, the latter are reproduced as a whole. The category of phraseologically related meanings includes, on the one hand, cases of phraseological conditionality of the use of a word, and on the other hand, the meaning of a limited area of applicability.
Let's consider the syntagmatic relations of semes by semes in the form of usual and occasional comparisons of N. Abgaryan's story "Manyunya". Comparisons of this story are analyzed in the works of E.P. Ivanyan, see,,. The subject of the study is the syntagmatic relations of semes by semes. The purpose of the article is to consider the syntagmatic relations of semes by semes in lexical and grammatical compatibility. At the basis of lexical compatibility, grammatical compatibility is highlighted. Comparisons of the story are not only free and connected combinations of words, but also related combinations of words that have undergone deformation. Free syntagmas form occasional comparisons, bound syntagmas form usual ones. It is customary to distinguish between the compatibility of lexical units of two types - grammatical (syntactic) and lexical. If lexical compatibility is a set and conditions for the implementation of lexical distributors of a word, then the syntactic compatibility of a word is the totality and properties of syntactic links potentially possible with it, a set and conditions for the implementation of syntactic links.
In a speech sequence, words enter into combinations with each other, and various relationships arise between their sememes. It is from the seme composition of sememes that the possibility or impossibility of a meaningful combination of words with each other depends. The classification of sememe relationships according to semes in the syntagmatic series by V.G. Gaka. The scientist proposed to distinguish three types of relations between the sememes of combined lexemes: semantic agreement, which implies “the presence of the same component in two members of the syntagma”; semantic inconsistency, which involves “omitting a common component in one of the terms”; mismatch, which means “the presence within the syntagma of components that are incompatible from the point of view of real subject relations” . From the story of N. Abgaryan, 194 comparisons were identified by the method of continuous sampling. 63% of images of comparisons enter into syntagmatic relations: semantic disagreement (41%), semantic disagreement (19%), semantic agreement (12%). The remaining images of comparisons (37%) are presented in one word, considered, combinations of semes by semes in syntagmatic relations, cannot. The correlation of syntagmatic relations of semes by semes in the image of comparisons of the story "Manyunya" is shown in the diagram:
I. Semantic inconsistency
Semes in the sememe of comparison images are considered in the mismatch of the connecting components of meaning between a noun and a noun, a noun and an adjective, a noun and a numeral, a noun and a verb. 1. The common component of meanings is omitted in combinations of a noun with a noun in ordinary, occasional comparisons, as well as in ordinary comparisons containing deformation. In these comparisons, two objects enter into syntagmatic relations, one object is combined with another grammatically, but nouns do not have connecting components in their meaning. In the usual comparison, as from a cornucopia, the components of the meaning of the elements of comparisons form coherent combinations of words and do not correlate in a common seme: the word horn has the meaning “a hard, tapering outgrowth of bone substance on the skull in some animals”, and the word abundance
"large quantity, excess, abundance." The phraseological dictionary interprets the phraseological unit cornucopia - "about a generous, abundant source of earthly goods", on the basis of the phraseological unit, a comparison was formed as from a cornucopia with the meaning "in a very large amount".
The comparison has a mythological origin and correlates with the images of ancient Greek myths. The images, as a rule, do not appear independently, but as an element of situations associated with myths about gods, heroes, historical and mythological events. In occasional comparisons, the components of meanings form free combinations of words with the omission of the common component of meanings . So, in comparisons, like in a doctor's waiting room, like a stone idol from Easter Island, like a crest of a secretary's bird, and other semes do not agree in the combination of words. word Semantic agreement Semantic disagreement Semantic disagreement Usual comparisons Occasional comparisons Deformation of usual comparisons The elements of the right side of the comparison, which are literary onym and ideonym, do not have common semes, but the semantic content of the ideonym has a reference to the literary onym. For example, a comparison like a monster from the cartoon "The Scarlet Flower" of the seme of the lexeme monster does not find common semes with the ideonym used in the comparison. But the semantic content of the cartoon "The Scarlet Flower" implies a character denoted by this lexeme. We also find in comparison like Cinderella from the movie "Three Nuts for Cinderella". Sememes in comparison with the transformation of the associated meaning, like leaves on the windmill, have sem.2 in common. The common component of meanings is omitted in adjective-noun combinations in ordinary, occasional, and deformed comparisons. In such combinations, syntagmatic relations form an object and its attribute; there is no common seme in the sememe of the object and its attribute. Among the usual comparisons of the story, syntagmas stand out as from a toothache, a white flag, like a house of cards, etc. Occasional comparisons with a mismatch of connecting components of meanings are represented by examples of a quiet mouse, a hound dog, etc. To comparisons with transformations of the usual meaning, in which the common seme is omitted , are: like a granite rock, like a sacrificial sheep.3. The common component of meanings is omitted in combinations of a numeral with a noun in ordinary and occasional comparisons. Comparative combinations are formed between an object and its quantity, a common component of meaning is absent in the semes of an object and its quantity. Combinations of a noun and a numeral represent an ordinary comparison as two drops of similarity and occasional comparisons as two scarecrows, like a hundred thousand cheetahs, like two mutant tadpoles, like two dolphins. 4. The common component of meanings is omitted in combinations of a pronoun with a noun in occasional comparisons: like my dad; better than our mom. In semes, there is no common component between lexemes with the meaning of an object and an indication of it. 5. The common component of meanings is omitted in verb-noun combinations in ordinary and occasional comparisons. The absence of a common seme is observed between the objects of the process in the usual (as if by hand, as if a demon was possessed by others) and occasional (as if her teeth ached, etc.) comparisons. II. Semantic mismatch
In cases of semantic mismatch between the components, the semantic adaptation of the components to each other occurs: one of the conflicting semes is extinguished or the missing seme is transferred to the meaning of another component. In the images of comparisons, there is a semantic mismatch of semes by semes in the connection of a noun and a noun, a noun and an adjective, a noun and a verb, the connection between the elements of the object of comparison is lost due to a single element of comparison. 1. The presence of incompatible components within the syntagma in combinations of a noun with a noun is found in usual, occasional and deformed comparisons. In these comparisons, two objects enter into syntagmatic relations, one object is combined with another grammatically, but the meaning components of nouns are incompatible. So, in the usual comparison, the connection between the semes is lost like in a frying pan: already “non-venomous snake, reptiles”, a frying pan is “a kitchen utensil for frying food”. In the syntagma, the meaning “for frying food” in the lexeme frying pan is extinguished, since one cannot meet a reptile snake in a normal human diet. In this example, the components of the meaning diverge, which leads to a comic effect. E.N. Nikitina, considering the conflict connection in the literary texts of the 19th–20th centuries, concludes that the experimental direction of realism “is achieved by a non-canonical connection of the techniques of different models of speech activity (created within the framework of the realistic method) . In comparison, as on the wings of love, the missing seme “flying through the air” is transferred to the seme love, the seme “the organ of birds and insects” fades away. In occasional (an angel in the flesh) and transformed (as in God's bosom) comparisons, the seme "an incorporeal being, a spirit" is extinguished. 2. The presence of incompatible components within the syntagma in combinations of a noun with an adjective is present in occasional comparisons. In such combinations, syntagmatic relations form an object and its attribute, there is a mismatch between the sememe of the object and its attribute. Incompatible components are observed in comparisons as a weak-willed lump, a blind lump, reminiscent of an indifferent (reinforced concrete) structure. In all examples, the sign of inanimate objects is animate. The seme "substance/construction" is eliminated, acquiring the missing seme "inherent in the living."3. The presence of incompatible components within the syntagma in combinations of a noun with a verb contains usual comparisons. In comparison, as if swallowed arshin, there is an incompatible seme “measure of length” in the subject and process: arshin is “a Russian measure of length equal to 0.711 meters, used before the introduction of the metric system” and swallow “with the movements of the muscles of the throat, draw in and push thon. through the esophagus to the stomach." The seme “measure of length” fades away, the dictionary gives the meaning of the comparison “about a person with an unnaturally straight posture, bearing; about a person holding himself unnaturally upright because of stiffness, ceremony, restraint, aloofness, etc.” .4. Lost connection in comparison due to single element of comparison in occasional and transformed comparisons. In an occasional comparison, it is as if an unfortunate animal is being tormented somewhere in her stomach. In the example “It was easier to sweep into a scoop and throw out the consequences of a tornado outside the barn”, there is an incompatible seme “natural phenomenon” in the lexeme tornado. In comparison with the transformation, as if all the Egyptian darkness has thickened in your intestines, there is a semantic adaptation of the seme “part of the digestive system” to the phraseological unit Egyptian darkness.III. Semantic agreementSemantic agreement of semes by sememes is observed in connection with the components of meanings noun and noun, noun and adjective, noun and verb.1. The presence of a common seme between combinations of a noun with a noun is observed in ordinary and occasional comparisons. In these combinations, there is a common seme between the sememes of an object and an object. In comparison, as in the sea, the ships, the agreement of semantics with the lexemes sea and the ship gives a common semantic “sea”. Semantic agreement occurs in examples of occasional comparisons like a soldier (retreating) army, like a stingy knight (over his) chests, etc.2. The presence of a common seme between combinations of a noun and an adjective in occasional comparisons. The same components of meaning are found between the subject and its attribute, for example, the comparison by baby talk contains the common seme “period of human development”. We find a common seme between the semes in comparisons like the Homeric Cyclops Polyphemus, as if (she participated) in gladiator fights etc.3. The presence of a common seme between combinations of a noun and a verb is found in occasional comparisons. The comparison, like our Vasya, when he climbs the climb, contains two combinations: (1) like (our) Vasya, when he climbs (the climb) and (2) (like our Vasya), when he climbs the climb. In example 1, the lexemes Vasya (in the story, such a name is given to a car) and climb have a common seme “movement”, in example 2, the lexemes climb and (on) rise have a common component of the meaning “up”. In comparison - a separate sentence "This is how the locomotive slows down when it is afraid to miss the platform - loud, frightening pffffffff" the combination slows down the locomotive has the common seme "vehicle". Some elements of the comparison do not agree on a common seme: the semes of the meanings of the words are afraid and miss, contain the contradictory seme "live" and refer the comparison to the group of semantic mismatch. This comparison is based on the combination of semantic agreement and disagreement.IV. An image represented by one word/words with one meaning
The image of comparison, represented by one word, does not have compatibility with another linguistic unit and cannot be considered in the syntagmatic relation of seme by sememe. The group contains usual and occasional comparisons. In the usual, like in Papa Carloi, occasional, like in Uncle Moishe, like in Jennis Joplin, like the old man Hottabych, and other comparisons, two words form one meaning “face”, which is in the mind of the character of the story - a child. Comparisons are like rubber, well, or how chewing gum, like NifNif and NufNuf, are a combination of two comparisons united by the union or / and. Thus, we can draw the following conclusions: one meaning) into syntagmatic relations of semes by semes. In the images of comparisons, all types of relations between semes by semes are presented, in some of them there is a combination of these types, examples of which are presented in occasional comparisons.2. Semantic inconsistency is represented by combinations of a noun with a noun, an adjective, a numeral, a pronoun, a verb. An object in combination with its attribute, quantity, action or with another object forms an image of comparison, i.e. the left side of the comparison is compared with the right side of the subject, in which the elements of the value do not agree with each other, do not have common components of values. images diverge from each other in meaning. Images of comparisons that enter into relations of semantic mismatch have combinations in which the connection is lost due to a single element of the image of comparison. N. Abgaryan uses comparisons in which the meaning components are incompatible, which, in some examples, leads to a comic effect4. Semantic agreement contains combinations of a noun with a noun, an adjective, a verb. An object has a common component of meaning with a feature, action, or other object.
5. Syntactic compatibility helps to reveal the grammatical structure of the comparison. In the story "Manyunya" the main element of the right part of the comparison is a noun, which is consistent with other parts of speech.
Links to sources: 1. Avdeeva O.I. Features of syntagmatic relations of verbal phrases of the Russian language: semantic and grammatical aspects // Bulletin of the Adyghe State University. Series 2: Philology and art criticism. Issue No. 3 (105) / 2012. -S. 8388.2. Aspects of semantic research / Ufimtseva A.A.; resp. editors Arutyunova N.D., Ufimtseva A.A.; Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Linguistics. -M.: Nauka, 1980. -356 p. 3. Ivanyan E.P. Natural science and humanitarian approaches in the linguistic analysis of a literary text // Artistic consciousness: consolidation of natural science and humanitarian approaches: Vseross. scientific conf., dedicated 200th anniversary of the birth of M.Yu. Lermontov. – Samara: PSGA, 2014. P. 5664.4. Ivanyan E.P. The problem of studying literary onyms in the logoepistemic aspect // Actual problems of Russian and comparative philology: theory and practice: Intern. scientific and practical conf., dedicated 25th anniversary of the department Russian and comparative philology BSU. May 1213, 2016 -Ufa: RIC BashGU, 2016. -S. 3640.5. Kotelova N.Z. The meaning of the word and its compatibility (to formalization in linguistics) / Nadezhda Zakharovna Kotelova. - Leningrad: Nauka, Leningrad branch, 1975. -164 p. 6. Kuzmina N.A. Modern Russian language. Lexicology: theory, training, control: textbook. allowance / N.A. Kuzmin. -2nd ed., rev. –M.: FLINTA: Nauka, 2010. –336 p.7. Mokienko V. M. Nikitina T. G. A large dictionary of Russian folk comparisons. Moscow: CJSC OLMA Media Group, 2008. 800 p. 159164.9. Nikitina E.N. “There are strange convergences” On the connection of the incompatible in literary texts // Russian speech. 5/2012. -WITH. 2430.10. Pankina M.F. Types of semantic compatibility of verbs of independent movement in Russian and German. –M.: Sputnik+ Company, 2007. –125 p. 11. Plotnikov B.A. Fundamentals of semasiology: Proc. allowance for students. philologist. fak. universities / Plotnikov Bronislav Aleksandrovich; Ed. Supruna A.E. –Minsk: Highest. School, 1984. –220 p.12. Popova ZD Lexical system of language: (internal organization, categorical apparatus and methods of study): textbook / Popova Zinaida Danilovna, Sternin Iosif Abramovich. -Voronezh: Voronezh University Press, 1984. -148 p.13. Sternin I.A., Salomatina M.S. Semantic analysis of the word in context. -Voronezh: "Sources", 2011. 150 p. Circulation 200 copies14. Ufimtseva A.A. The word in the lexical-semantic system of the language / Ufimtseva Anna Anfilofevna; Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Institute of Linguistics. -M.: Nauka, 1968. -271 p.15. Ushakov D.N. Explanatory dictionary of the modern Russian language, D.N. Ushakov M.: "Adelant", 2013. -800 p.16. Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. (Team of authors: prof. Fedosov I.V., Candidate of Philological Sciences Lapitsky A.N.). M.: UNVES. -2003. –608s.
Connected texts are built taking into account the law of semantic agreement, which V.G. Gak defines it as follows: two words form the correct combination, provided that, in addition to specific features, they contain some common feature or do not have incompatible features, for example, a verb or adjective denoting an action or property of a living being is combined with animate nouns ( the man spoke; a sick man). Reconciliation of contradictory signs is possible provided that in one of the members of the phrase the contradictory semes of the other member are canceled due to the rethinking of one of the components. Wed The whole house was talking about it; sick conscience etc. Thus, the incompatibility of semes leads to the extinction of the "extra" seme of one of the words in the syntagma. So, for example, in combination Time is running in the meaning of the verb go the component ‘move by stepping’ is lost.
For the Russian language, semantic agreement is more characteristic than for other languages. So, for example, an action in Russian is often denoted depending on the nature of the subject who performs it: 1) Bird flew out from the nest; 2)Snake crawled out from a hole. As we can see, the process of movement in Russian takes a physically different form depending on who is moving ( fish floats, snake crawling, bird flies and so on.). And in French, the designation of the action depends on the nature of the situation itself, and not on the specific characteristics of the subject, therefore, when translating sentences 1) and 2), the same verb will be used, which literally means “leave”. Compare: 1) L'oiseau est sorti de son nid; 2) Le serpent est sorti de son trou. Here are some more examples that show the special significance for the construction of statements in Russian of duplication of semantic components: closet costs by the window, book lies on the table, picture hanging on the wall, where the specific form of position in space depends on the nature of the object itself; cf. Also: build a house, dig a hole, make a nest; write poetry, draw cartoons, make a film etc., where the creation process is executed differently for different types of created objects; destroy a house, kill an animal, cut down a forest, erase writing, tear paper and so on. , where the destruction process differs depending on the nature of the object.
Thus, the coherence of the generated statement is ensured by the repetition of semantic components. The law of maximum repetition of meanings is the main law that regulates both the construction of the text and its understanding: native speakers intuitively choose such a comprehension of the statement, in which the repetition of semantic components will be the greatest.
Subject.
Properties subject:
1) It is the main structurally independent member of the sentence, subordinating the predicate in a two-part sentence.
2) Reflects the logical structure of thought (subject S).
3) It occupies the main syntactic position before the predicate.
5) Denotes the subject of speech
6) It is usually expressed by the name of a noun. or a personal pronoun in the form I.p.
8) It can be morphologized PE (typical formation) and non-morphologized PE.
9) Contains "given".
General question to the subject Q: What is the proposal about? This question allows:
1) identify the subject of speech;
2) set "given".
Questions Who? What? are incorrect in syntax (they are morphological)
The OGZ of the subject is the meaning of the subject of speech, can be specified:
Carrier of action (student goes to study)
Carrier of the state (passenger dozing)
As a quality characteristic
One of the most ... ways to determine the subject is the way it is expressed.
The standard expression of the subject is a noun in I.p. (personal pronoun in I.p.)
In Russian, it is conditionally possible to distinguish ways of expressing the subject:
1) Noun in I.p.
Petya carefully reads the textbook
2) Personal pronoun in I.p.
I often take a break during my free time.
3) Pronoun of any other category
Someone knocked the door.(indefinite pronoun)
Particular attention should be paid to relative pronouns that play the role of the subject in the subordinate part of the SSP.
Studying is a difficult activity that not everyone can do.
4) The word of any substantiated part of speech.
The mourners stood on the platform.
5) Words of any part of speech used in the meaning of nouns.
In the distance, "Hurrah!"
6) Infinitive of the verb
The infinitive subject is the most semantic subject, because it combines the meaning of both the object and the action.
It is a great pleasure to live on earth.
7) Non-free phrase
There was something infantile in his behavior.
The crescent of the month has become brighter and lighter (Lex. Esv. SS)
8) The subject can be expressed and not I.p. , in this case the subject includes a phrase with the meaning of approximate, including the words before, near, over, more, less and a combination of a numeral and a noun dependent on them in R.p.
Over two hundred applicantswere enrolled in universities.
9) A whole sentence or several sentences.
"I will, I will fly!" - rang and sang in the head of Alexei.
Predicate
The predicate as a structural-semantic component of the sentence has a set of the following differentiating features:
1) The main member of the sentence, which structurally depends on the subject in a two-part sentence.
2) Reflects the logical structure of thought (predicate P)
3) Usually takes the main position after the subject.
4) Included in the block diagram of the proposal.
5) Denotes a predicative feature of the subject of speech in the modal-temporal plan (as an action, as a state, as a characteristic).
6) Usually expressed by the conjugated form of the verb (and names)
7) Forms the grammatical basis of the sentence.
8) Usually means new.
In a sentence, the predicate is no less important than the subject. The subject only names the subject of speech, and the predicate characterizes it from the point of view of a predicative feature.
The predicative sign is attributed to the subject of speech in a certain modal-temporal plan.
Question to the predicate: what is said about the subject of speech?
(- as an action
Like a state
as a qualitative characteristic)
Questions what is he doing, what will he do- incorrect.
The expression in the predicate of the predicative feature of the subject of speech implies the presence of two meanings in the predicate: grammatical meaning (GZ) and real meaning (VZ).
OT is the specific name of the attribute attributed to the subject of speech. It relies on the LZ-th word acting as a predicate.
As part of the predicate, there should always be a word with a full-fledged LZ.
GP is the relation of a predicative feature to the subject of speech and its modal-temporal assessment.
The expression of the CG is a verb in conjugated form or its significant absence (zero form).
The sun began (GS, indicates the time and reality of the action) to lean (OS) towards the west.
The moonlight streams (GZ and VZ) on the earth.
According to the meaning and method of expression, the predicate is verbal, nominal and mixed.
Depending on the structure and way of expressing the GZ: simple, compound and complex.
These two classifications complement each other, overlap each other and form a system of predicate types.
__________________________________________ TYPES OF PREDICTS ______________________________________
Simple __Composite ____ Complex ____________________
Verbal (PGS) Verbal (CHS) Nominal (SIS) Verbal Nominal Mixed
(SSGT) (SSIT) (SSST)
PGS - expressed by a verb and has a synthetic character, since OT and GP are expressed in it in parallel in one verb word form.
Ways of expressing ASG:
1) Verbs in any mood.
Peter speaks at the meeting
2) Verb in any tense
3) Verb in infinitive form.
4) The so-called verbal interjections
Grab, shast (for example)
5) Phraseologically not free SS
Leontiev always experienced inexplicable sadness.
PGS can be uncomplicated (there are no complicating structural elements in the composition) and complicated (if there are such complicating elements in the composition)
Complicating elements can be expressed:
Syntactic imperative form
(Let be….)
A combination of two verbs, one of which is lexically empty (took, went ...)
And Vasya took one eye and closed it.
Repetitive verb forms
A combination of verbs with intensifying particles (it used to be, as, as if)
The day seemed to be dozing.
The snow kept getting stronger.
All forms of complicated PGS are characterized by a high degree of expressive richness, are often emotionally colored and are used only in colloquial speech.
Compound, complex predicates are characterized by the fact that in them the OT and GP are expressed dissectedly:
In compound predicates - in two word forms.
In complex predicates - in three or more word forms.
The CGS (compound verbal predicate) is characterized by the fact that in it the OT and GP are expressed lazily in two verb forms. It consists of two parts - main and auxiliary. Main part contains an OT and is expressed by the infinitive of the verb. Auxiliary part contains the GZ and is expressed by the conjugated form of the verb.
In the role of connection in the auxiliary part, verbs of three lexical and grammatical categories can act:
1) Phase verbs, expressing an assessment of the action, called the infinitive, from the point of view of the phase of its course. (initial, middle, final).
Peter began to answer.
2) Modal verbs, expressing the modal assessment of the action, called the infinitive of the main verb.
Wanted, wished, aspired, etc.
Peter couldn't prepare properly to the lesson.
3) Verbs of emotional evaluation, expressing the emotional characteristics of the action, called the infinitive of the main verb.
Petya likes to answer at literature lessons.
Phraseologically non-free verb-type SSs with modal meanings can also act as a link.
He had no right to take risks, and therefore he walked carefully.
NB
Not every combination of a conjugated verb with a dependent infinitive is a compound verbal predicate.
This may be a combination of PGS with minor members:
Petya finished preparing for the lessons (SGS).
Petya helped Sveta get ready for the lessons (helped with what? In preparation for the lessons)).
Petya went to Moscow to study (target infinitive)
SIS (compound nominal predicate)
SIS is characterized by the fact that in it the OT and PG are expressed dissectedly in two word forms: one verbal and one nominal.
Main part- contains an OT and is expressed by a name (any). Also called an associated nominal member (PNA).
The auxiliary part expresses the CG and is represented by a conjugated linking verb. stand out three types of links:
1) abstract. Verb be, the copula expresses only the GP of time and modality, is completely devoid of (ch. to be) OT.
In the present tense, the link is zero.
personal happiness impossible without the happiness of others. (N. Chernyshevsky)
2) Semi-distracted(semi-significant) copula also expresses the meaning of modality and time and contains a residual lexical meaning.
All becomes lighter, more fun from the first snow (Pushkin).
3) Significant connectives- these are verbs that have completely retained their LP in the language, which can be used as PGS, but in this sentence they lose or have a very weakened PL and act as a link of SIS.
The night was cold.
PMP can be expressed in different ways:
1) IP in different cases:
The chief was delighted.
2) An adjective in any form (full, short, comparative, etc.):
The former boss was fair.
3) Participles (in any form and any type)
The forest stood yellowed.
4) Pronouns of any ranks
5) Adverbs
Everything was the same for them.
6) With numerals, Petya came second.
7) Non-free SS
Marina was a smart girl.
COMPOUND PREDICT
SL SCs arise on the basis of components due to additional verbal elements. They are characterized by the fact that in them VZ and GZ are also expressed dissected, but in 3 or more word forms.
CSGT (complex predicate of the verbal type) is such a predicate, in the torus OT and GP are expressed dissectedly in 3 or more verbal word forms. They consist of two parts: main and auxiliary.
The main part contains the OT and is expressed by the infinitive of the full-valued verb, and the auxiliary part contains the PG-s and is expressed by the conjugated linking verb and the infinitive linking with a modal or phase meaning.
Flash Part
Peter wanted to continue work.
A verb phraseological unit can also be used as a linking verb.
SSIT - is characterized by the fact that in it the OT and GP are expressed dissectedly in three or more word forms, one nominal ( the nominal word form is always at the end of the predicate).
It consists of two parts: main and auxiliary.
The main part expresses the OT and can be represented by any nominal PR and is called PCH.
The auxiliary part contains the GZ-I and is expressed by verbal connectives (?), one of which must always be expressed in a conjugated form.
SSST - is a symbiosis, a combination of nominal and verbal predicates. It is characterized by the fact that in it the OT and GP are also expressed dissected, also in 3 or more word forms (nominal and verbal). Wherein named component is located not at the end predicate.
CCST Models:
1) Short adj + 0 (zero off link) + Inf
real music able (0) to express wonderful feelings.
2) Word KS +0+ Inf
Sad, difficult, hard, impossible, leisure, etc.
You can't evade the answer.
3) Exist. with score value + 0 + Inf
Master, amateur, hunter, not a fool, etc.
Petya was not a fan of food
4) Neg. pronoun word + 0 + inf
No one, no one, nothing, no one, etc.
Someone began to work.
5) Brief participle. + 0 + Inf
In the midst of an attack it was decided part of the troops hand over adjacent front.
6) Not St. Phrase (ch. with adjective) + Inf
He found it more convenient to avoid talking.
The subject and predicate form the predicative basis of a two-part sentence, while predicative relations are established between them, i.e. the relationship between the predicative feature and the subject of speech. These predicative relations are expressed with the help of a predicative connection.
An active role in the expression of this connection belongs to the predicate. The means of expressing a predicative connection are, as a rule, the forms of the verb of the predicate, particles, word order, intonation. In this case, the main means of communication is the form of the verb, which is entirely determined by the subject. The rest of the funds are additional.
By the presence or absence of the main means of communication, two-part sentences are divided into two large groups:
A) Sentences with a formally expressed predicative connection.
B) Sentences with a formally unexpressed predicative connection.
In a sentence with FVPS, the predicate always contains a conjugated verb or a name. This type of predictive relationship is called predictive agreement. It is of three types:
1) Grammar agreement
2) Conditional approval
3) Semantic agreement
Grammar agreement predicate with subject always implies that they have common grammatical categories.
The means of expressing grammatical agreement is the ending of the predicate.
Brevity is the sister of talent (similarity in the form of gender, number, case)
Conditional agreement- observed:
1) with the subject, expressed invariable word, the predicate conditionally agrees in the form:
In present and bud. time - in the 3rd person singular. hours;
In the past tense and subjunctive mood - in f. unit cf. kind).
2) With a subject, a pronounced quantitative numeral, a combination of a numeral with a noun in R.p., the predicate conditionally agrees in the same forms.
There were three buses at the bus stop.
3) The predicate conditionally agrees with the infinitive subject in the same forms.
Seeing flaws meant the ability to self-criticism.
With the subject, pronounced pronoun who, the predicate conditionally agrees in the form of the 3rd person singular. numbers, and in the past tense and subjunctive mood - in the form of m.r. (unit)
Someone knocked the door.
With the subject, expressed pronoun that (something, etc.), the predicate conditionally agrees in the form of 3 person singular, and in the past tense - in the form of s.r.
Something moved in the hollow
Semantic agreement
In semantic agreement, the form of the predicate is determined not by the form of the subject, but by its semantics (meaning)
Allocate cases:
1) If the subject is expressed by a combination of a numeral with a noun, the predicate is used in the plural. number, if it is necessary to emphasize the separateness, independence of objects.
Four students stood at the office.
2) If the subject is expressed by SS with the meaning compatibility, the verb is used in the plural.
Brother and sister arrived in the city.
3) If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable noun denoting an animal, then the predicate in present. and bud. time is put in the form of 3 l. units numbers, and in the past tense - in m.r. (or f.r.)
A beautiful cockatoo sat on a branch.
If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable proper noun denoting an object, the form of the predicate is determined by the gender of the word being defined
If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable common noun denoting an object, the predicate is in the form of s.r.
If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable noun (a complexly abbreviated word), then the form of the predicate is determined by the gender of the supporting word.
If the subject is expressed by the noun. a common gender or a word close to it in meaning, the form of the predicate is determined by the gender of the person.
