Predicate and objective syntaxeme in the semantic and syntactic structure of a sentence in modern Greek
Exploring the relationship between morphological and syntactic categories of verbs. Disclosure of the functional characteristics of the predicate and objective syntax in the semantic-syntactic structure of the sentence, which determines the structure.
| Рубрика | Иностранные языки и языкознание |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 17.02.2022 |
| Размер файла | 39,8 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/
Kyiv National Linguistic University
Predicate and objective syntaxeme in the semantic and syntactic structure of a sentence in modern Greek
Tetiana V. Liubchenko
Abstract
The relevance of the proposed study arosefrom the necessity to define the correlation between the morphologic and syntactic categories of the verb; disclose the functional characteristics of this part of speech that defines the structure of the sentence, the implementation of word formation intentions of the word and construction of the text as an integral unit of the communicative syntax. The article observes the major types of predicates, existing in Modern Greek. The author has coined the lexical content, morphological arrangement as well as the syntactic behavior of objective syntaxemes. At the semantic and syntactic level, the objective syntaxemes hold the position of right-sided strongly controlled member of the sentence. Prototype objective syntaxeme is the causative with a categorical seme expressing motivation of occurrence of the signs of substances. In Modern Greek, causative verbs are represented by the verbs of one lexeme; the verbs of different lexemes; the verbs created using word-formation instruments. Causatives represented by the verbs of one lexeme are interpreted by author as verbs with the variable valence. Verbs with the variable valence include those in which the morphological form itself creates the transitive and intransitive constructions without changing its voice affiliation Word-formation transformative of verbs with the variable valence is represented by the adjective-based and noun-derived verbs. This description enables the preparation of the functional grammar of Modern Greek, which is an urgent task of Modern hellinistic. In common language sense, the interpretation of the study results is important to identify the correlation between the semantic and syntactic structure of the sentence, to determine the semantic types of predicates and to classify the objective syntaxemes.
Keywords: structure of the sentence, communicative syntax, predicate, objective syntaxeme, functional grammar.
Анотація
Актуальність пропонованого дослідження зумовлена необхідністю вивчення взаємозв 'язку між морфологічними і синтаксичними категоріями дієслова; розкриття функціональних характеристик цієї частини мови, що визначає структуру речення, реалізацію словотвірних інтенцій слова і побудову цілісного тексту як одиниці комунікативного синтаксису. В статті розглянуто семантико- синтаксичну структуру речення новогрецької мови, встановлено типи предикатів новогрецької мови, з'ясовано лексичне наповнення, морфологічне оформлення та синтаксичну поведінку об'єктних синтаксем. На семантико-синтаксичному рівні об 'єктна синтаксема перебуває в позиції правобічного сильнокерованого члена речення. Прототипною об 'єктною синтаксемою є каузатив із категоріальною семою, що виражає мотивацію появи ознак субстанцій. У новогрецькій мові каузативні дієслова репрезентовано: дієсловами однієї лексеми; дієсловами різних лексем; дієсловами, утвореними за допомогою словотворчих засобів. Каузативи, представлені дієсловами однієї лексеми, тлумачимо як дієслова з варіативною валентністю. До дієслів із варіативною валентістю віднесено дієслова, у яких та сама морфологічна форма будує перехідні та неперехідні конструкції, не змінюючи своєї станової належності. Словотвірний трансформатив дієслів із варіативною валентністю представлено відад 'єктивними та відсубстантивними дієсловами. Такий опис уможливлює підготовку функціональної граматики новогрецької мови, що є актуальним завданням сучасної елліністики. У загальномовознавчому аспекті інтерпретація отриманих результатів дослідження важлива для виявлення відношень між семантичною й синтаксичною структурами речення, визначення семантичних типів предикатів та класифікації об'єктних синтаксем.
Ключові слова: структура речення, комунікативний синтаксис, предикат, об 'єкт, функціональна граматика.
Introduction
The long-term scientific studies of the linguists on the analysis of sentence as a unit of language system (V. Admoni, Y. Andersh, O. Bondarko, I. Vykhovanets, A. Zahnitko, G. Zolotova, G. Helbih, S. Katsnelson, T. Masytska, M. Stepanova, L. Tesniere) indicate the presence of controversial issues, including the prominent problem of determining the relations of the sentence components. In the sphere of problems of the sentence theory, the theory of valence, the inter-level category determined with the semantic of the verb and closely connected with syntactic and morphological levels of the language, is actual.
The verb that serves as predicate in a sentence connects objects, signs, location, time, actions, processes, occurring in the surrounding reality into one. “Syntagmatic field of the verb” (a range of subject-object, subject-object-recipient relations etc.) covers categorical values of transitive / intransitive property, active/passive, reciprocity, reflexive, the whole complex of the sentence structure that implements semantic potencies of the verb (Zahnitko, 1990: 10-11). At the semantic level, arguments (semanteme components) fill semantic slots of the verb-predicate, which on the syntactic level is an organizing member of sentences with actant that differ in their functions (Zahnitko, 1993: 9; Zahnitko, 1996: 8). Thus, the verb qualifies the role status and hierarchy of participants of the situation and programs a positional model of the sentence. The predicate certainly is the organizing center of an expression; however, the predicate itself determines the type of situation and a set of its arguments, and while in the proposition, its participants to some extent influence the type of predicate.
Hellenistic still has many unresolved issues relating to qualification of the sentence structure in different tiers, that demonstrate the topicality of the research. This necessitates an in-depth study of the Modern Greek verbs in order to determine the correlation between components of the sentence structures with objective reality. Multidimensional analysis of the verb is in line with the triple criterion of linguistic unit interpretation (Zolotova, 2001: 19), proposed in Modern linguistics, in which semantics, syntax and morphology are in seamless interaction. This description will enable the preparation of the functional grammar of Modern Greek, which is an urgent task of Modern hellenistic.
1. Aim and Objectives
The aim of the article is to detect the predicate and objective syntaxeme in the semantic and syntactic structure of a sentence in Modern Greek.
The interpretation of the results, based on Modern Greek material, is important to identify the correlation between the semantic and syntactic structures of the sentence, to determine the semantic types of predicates and to classify the objective syntaxemes in general. The illustrative material of the study consists of 5245 verbs selected with continuous sampling method from the Modern Greek dictionaries: Dictionary of Modern Greek (Лє^іко трд Nsag Ел/пр'їкцг ylroaoag), Modern Greek Dictionary; Dictionary of Modern Greek Demotic (Nso єллцуїко лєгіко. Лєгіко трд ovyxpovqg єллцуікцг 5рротгкрд уХгоооад).
2. Levels of a Sentence Structure
predicate syntaxeme semantic sentence
In Modern Ukrainian linguistics, sentences are analyzed on four levels: proper semantic (reflecting the logic (predicate-argument) structure and common to all languages); semantic and syntactic (reflecting the content of the expression, based on syntactic relations between parts of the sentence); formal grammatical (proper syntactic) (includes syntactic relations between parts of the sentence, and parts of the sentence distinguished on the basis of syntactic relations); proper communicative (reflecting the dual nature of the actual sentence division, helps a three-tiered language structure of the sentence to adapt itself to the speech conditions, communicative orientation of the text, main purpose of the expression) (Vykhovanets, 1983: 7-8, 57, 125-130).
Each semantic and syntactic structure of the verb is correlated to a certain logical- semantic structure. Creating sentences, the speaker relies upon a positional semantic- syntactic model.
Lomtev mentioned that “Positional model of a sentence is a finished unity, it is reproduced in speech, not created, so the sentence is a unit of the language, not speech. The one, who knows words, their forms and morphemes, does not know the language yet. Units of language are not only words, their forms and morphemes, but also positional models of the sentence. The sentence is a unit of the language exactly because it is a ready positional model, positional structure” (Lomtev, 1958: 125).
Just as Katsnelson and Meshchaninov, Lednei mentions that the subject-predicate structure of a judgment, which combines different logical options of the propositional function has different formal means of the verbal expression (Lednei, 2003: 5-6).
Kibrik (2004) believes that material of a cognitive structure is a notion of the situation and participants. The researcher differentiates between the following types of situations with participants: 1) process (Processant); 2) action (Agence, Patience); 3) thought (Speaker, Content); 4) feeling (Experience center, Stimuli); 5) possessivity (Possessor, Owning); 6) localization (Localized, Place); 7) description (Essence, Descriptor); 8) existence (Existing); 9) identification (Identifier, Identified); 10) name (Identifier, Identified). The prototype basis of a situation in most languages is action with nuclear participants: Agence, Patience (p. 14-15).
When speech acts are studied from the viewpoint of generative semantics, three components of the sentence model are distinguished. The first component, “external situational”, is associated with the value correlated with the situation and information transmitted to the recipient. On the semantic-syntactic level, the situation is reflected by a proposition consisting of a predicate and its actants. The most important are actants of a predicate correlated with its valence. The second component is act and speech one, determined by pragmatic factors. Its essence is that the participants of communication known specifics of a situation in which an act of communication takes place. The difficulty in defining this component is that it is usually not expressed materially. The third component is communicative, associated with the recipient's strategy, his attitude to the message (Kibrik, 2004: 14-15).
Judgment as a propositional function is expressed on the syntactic level in parts of the sentence, and its subject-predicate structure - in the logical and grammatical structure of the sentence. This shows national and language specificity and life subjectively expressive speech colors of the sentence.
In Modern Greek researches, as a rule, block diagrams of sentences are given only on the formal grammatical level: Y-P, Y-P-A, Y-P-EA, Y-P-ПА, Y-P-EA-A, Y-EP-K, where Y - unoKsipsvo, P - pppa, A - apsoo uvtiksiusvo, EA - sppsoo uvtiksiusvo, nA - лротатако uvtiksiusvo, EP - govOstiko pppa, K - Karpyopoupsvo (Eapa^iSou, 2003: 3743).
Analysis of the literature shows that Greek (especially domestic) Hellenistics lacks integrated researches of the functional-categorical apparatus of the verb in general. There is only one in-depth study of morphological categories of the verb: functional grammar by Kleris and Bambiniotis (TpapparrKp трд Nsas EXXpvrKpg. AopolsnoupyrKp - EnrKorvrovraKp (II To pppa трд Nsag EXXpvrKpg. H opyavroop tou ppvvparog), where the researchers single out predicates of action (o nuppvag nou Splrovsr npa^p) denoting an action changing in time, and predicates of state (o nuppvag nou Splrovsr катаотаор) denoting an unchanged state (Klaipng, 2005: 168-169). However, it should be noted that the semantic and syntactic-semantic tiers of the sentence in this paper are identified. This, in our opinion, is due to the fact that researchers rely solely on the theory by L. Tesniere, who presents one-tier model of the sentence without differentiating between the formal and semantic aspects (in contrast to the two-tier model (Silnickij, 2006)).
Certain aspects of analysis of the syntactic structure of the sentence are disclosed in articles, which methodological framework is based on transformational analysis (Giannakidou, 1997; Lascaratou, 1985). In theses of speeches at conferences Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou present analysis of sentences with pronouns duplicated using the method of direct components (Alexiadou, 1997; Anagnostopoulou, 1995; Anagnostopoulou, 1997; Theofanopoulou-Kontou, 1985; AvayvooTonovlou, 1992). The issue of types of alternations with morphological load, specifically, morphemes of the verb status are reflected in the work of D. Brian (Mnparav, 1992: 91).
Zombolou classifies predicates depending on the type characteristics of the verbal action: 1) АшАкиопка (procedural): EKnlqproong (action-completion) - denoting action with a specific purpose that continues and ends when the purpose is achieved (%TiZro sva oniTi, avoiyro to napaOupo); Apaopg (action-action) - denoting action not limited in time (тр8%го, nspnairo); 2) Mn 5га5гкаотгка (non-procedural): ЕпшАсорд (action-resultative) - denoting non-continued action (PpioKro, %avro); Катаотаолд (action-state) - denoting being in a certain state (sigar approoTn, sproTsugsvn) (Zognolou, 1997: 235).
In Greek scientific literature, there is no finally defined term to interpret the concepts of “argument”, “actant”; it should also be emphasized that these terms are generally not recorded in reference works and encyclopedic literature (MavTag, 2006; HauliSou, 2005). Based on the reference analysis, the term “gsT8%rov” (argument) is used to indicate “a person or object involved in the action or being in a certain state” (Klaipng, 2005: 383). A criterion for determining semantic roles of arguments in the functional grammar by Kleris and Bambiniotis is the degree of interference between the argument and the action. Theoretical difference between actants and arguments is not substantiated in the paper. The researchers established three kinds of arguments:
1) arguments that influence the predicate-core of the communication: cause, define, perform an action. These are such roles as an actor, cause, instrument;
2) arguments influenced by the action. These are such roles as object, creation, being, recipient;
3) arguments that neither influence the predicate nor are influenced by an action. These are roles such as neutral actant, place (Klaipng, 2005: 200).
The term “oproga” is used by some scientists to denote actant “semantically dependent on verbs” (Klaipng, 2005: 384; Sapa^iSou, 2003: 35), and by others - as a component of the logical structure of the sentence (SsTaTog, 1997: 204). The term “ougnlgproga” is interpreted as “denotion of all actants except subject” (Klaipng, 2005: 389; Sapa^iSou, 2003: 33; XaTZnPaorlsiou, 1995: 122), although some researchers (C. Charalambakis, M. Setatos) treat all elements dependent on the semantics of the verb as actants, including the subject (SsTaTog, 1997: 204; XapalagnaKng, 2001: 110). It should also be emphasized that some scientists (I. Malahardi) define compulsory (agsoa ougnlnprogaTa) components of the sentence - actants, and optional - circonstants (ncpupcpciaxa ougnlnprogaTa) (MalayapSg, 1995: 373).
3. Predicate as a center of the positional model of a sentence
In Modern linguistics, we observe unequal interpretations of types of predicates and number of substantial syntaxemes. Classifications are based on different criteria:
1. Tesniere distinguishes actants and circonstants in the sentence structure. Actants represent three participants of a situation: “the first actant is the subject in traditional grammar - the one that performs the action”, “the second actant is the one that feels the effect of an action - the object”, “the third actant is the one, for / against which an action takes place - the indirect object”; the ratio between them may vary. The “first' and “second” actants, according to L. Tesniere, are equal structural disseminators of the verbal semantics, in contrast to the traditional concept, which includes the subject to primary parts of the sentence, and the object - to the secondary ones. Circonstants are adverbial modifiers (of time, place, and method) (Ten'er, 1988: 123-124).
2. According to Chafe, in the English language predicates are classified into four groups: predicates of state, process, action and process-action, and the absence of arguments - an ambient state and an ambient action. The seven arguments: agent, patient, experiencer, beneficiant, instrument, complement, and location are characterized by semantic relations to the type of the predicate (Chejf, 1975: 114-121).
3. Fillmore, the founder of case grammar, proposes to introduce the concept of depth cases in the analysis of the semantic and syntactic structure of a sentence (Fillmor, 1981а, 19816). The term “case” is used by the researcher not in its traditional meaning, but to denote different semantic roles of structures dependent on the verb. At an in-depth level the sentence is represented with a modus and proposition consisting of a verb and nominal phrases connected with it, with basic case functions: agentive (A), instrumentalis (I), dative (D), factitive (F), locative (L), objective (О) (Fillmore, 1981а: 400). The continuation of the “case grammar” was a combination of semasiological and cognitive research in prototype semantics (Vezhbicka, 1985).
4. Arguments of the predicate in Bondarko's functional-grammatical theory are lexical- semantic categories that can be characterised by a certain set of semantic roles (agence, patience, recipient, etc.); subject and object are syntactic-semantic categories that are realized at the level of the content plan of a sentence (Teorija funkcionalnoj grammatiki, 1992: 12-14). Depending on the availability of the subject and object, predicates are qualified as subjective and objective. Actant-subject names a carrier of the state or is a source of action; actant-object names the object, to which the action (resulting in a change of the object or change of its attitude to the subject) is directed (Teorija funkcional'noj grammatiki, 1992: 104). Some researchers define the object as a part of sentence, indicating an object external to the subject (specific or abstract), or an event that is placed in the semantic structure of the predicate and is “the sphere of distribution of signs of the predicate, or causator or stimulant” (Sheljakin, 2001: 22).
5. Sylnytskyi defines syntactic attributes of the verb as its tendency to combine itself with syntactic surrounding of a certain positions. According to the researcher, the list of syntactic attributes includes: 1) combinability of the verb with a direct object; 2) property of the verb to be used without a direct object; 3) combinability of the verb with an indirect object; 4) combinability of the verb with an adverbial modifier; 5) combinability of the verb with a secondary predicate; 6) combinability of the verb with an additional compound; 7) combinability of the verb with a postposition. Paradigmatic features are determined by comparing the dictionary definitions of the verb (“physical characteristic”, “physiological characteristic”, “form”, “structure”, “spatial characteristic”, etc.). Syntagmatic semantic features are defined by a certain set of semantic actants of the sentence consisting of verb meanings: “operational” (causative-stipulating state, which reflects the effect of one actant (subject) on another (object), and “terminal” (result of the previous operational condition). According to Sylnytskyi, the main types of semantic actants of the sentence include: the object - the main carrier of the terminal state; the subject - the carrier of the operational state; the conject - the auxiliary carrier of the terminal condition, which serves for orientation in space; the adject - the auxiliary actant to implement a terminal state (possessive adject, instrument, material, semiotic adject) (Sootnoshenie glagol'nyh priznakov razlichnyh urovnej, 1990: 39-43). Semantic classes of the verb are defined by the researcher with regard to simulated situations: 1) simple (implicit simple (non-projective implicit simple, projective implying simple); explicit simple (non-relational - relational simple, convergent - divergent simple, prospective - retrospective)); 2) complex (causative, semiotic, causative-semiotic) verbs; 3) projective - non-projective verbs (Sootnoshenie glagol'nyh priznakov razlichnyh urovnej, 1990: 272-391).
6. Depending on the width of arguments semantics, Kibardina distinguishes between the single-argument and multiargument verbs, respectively: single-subject (at the level of specific names) and multisubject (at the level of classes of names); single-object and multiobject (Kibardina, 1982: 33).
7. As determined by Kasevich, the verb-nucleus as a part of a syntactic structure serves as a nuclear syntaxeme; other syntaxemes, such as mandatory - actants, optional - circonstants, syntaxemes-definitions, connected with actants or circonstants, depend on the nucleus or are determined by each other (Kasevich, 1988: 105).
8. Apresjan's theory as to determination of the types of predicates was formed in stages. At the first stage, the researcher identified semantically homogeneous classes of verbs with the same syntactic behaviour (Apresjan, 1964; Apresjan, 1967); the second stage is connected with the development of Melchuk's model “Content-Text”: types of the predicate government are established based on an analysis using a special semantic language with variables denoting participants of a situation. Government is effected at three levels: semantic, syntactic, lexical and morphological. At the third stage the researcher concluded that the type of government is established on the basis of the predicate inclusion in a fundamental classification of predicates and defined classes of predicates (action, activity, occupation, etc.) and fifty roles of actants (audience, date, value, etc.) (Apresjan, 2007; Apresjan, 2006; Jazykovaja kartina mira i sistemnaja leksikografija, 2006).
9. According to Vykhovanets and Zahnitko, Ukrainian scientists, the verb-predicate has the proper semantic and syntactic-semantic statuses. A proper semantic predicate predicts the number of arguments and their role-based functions based on semes of agency, instrumentality, patiency. A semantic-syntactic predicate determines a set of actant syntaxemes with the relevant syntactic functions. In the Ukrainian language, Vykhovanets distinguishes predicates of action, predicates of process, predicates of state, predicates of quality, locative predicates, predicates of quantity and thirteen types of arguments (arguments having the meaning of an actor, recipient, experiencive, object, resultative, instrument, means, a carrier of physical condition, a carrier of comprehensive physical condition, identificative, componentive, compositive, locative). The concept of an action covers such attributes as “activity, causativity” and is directly linked to the existence of an object (Vykhovanets, 1992: 93-111). Nazarevych believes that the action of actional predicates is focused, depending on the will and intentions of a man or being; that a certain objective makes it act consciously or unconsciously (Nazarevych, 2008: 356). Predicates of process are characterised by an attribute of dynamics. In contrast to them, the verbs of state are characterised by typically “internal” attributes, properties that do not require expression of object relations. The verbs of state have an elementary semantic structure, as they denote processes within the scope of the subject. Predicates of quality denote a permanent attribute of an object. Locative predicates evidence the static nature of initial locativity. Predicates of quantity act to specify quantitative determinancy of objects (Vykhovanets, 1992: 93-111; Vykhovanets, 1983: 40-42; Vykhovanets, 2002: 70; Vykhovanets, 1988: 90; Zahnitko, 1990: 16).
10. Bacevich believes that in onomasiological terms the verb in a sentence predicts its participants' actions, including dynamic signs. In some cases, a verbal lexeme “keeps in its memory the outlines of the previous situation”. The researcher qualifies these verbs as “retrospective”. Verbs modelling a future situation are defined as “prospective”. “Prospective predicates” model dynamic situations (action, process, event) and static situations (existence, quality, property, attitude, state, location, possessivity) (Bacevich, 1990: 49-53).
In our current research project specifics of implementing verb valence in the Modern Greek language was determined at the semantic and syntactic level. At the syntactic level, predicates of sentences with objective syntaxemes were analysed. This is due to the fact that the sentence as the basic syntactic unit fully reflects functional peculiarities of syntactic units (minimal syntactic unit, expression). Predicates in Modern Greek are classified as predicates of action and predicates of state, based on the assertion that “by their semantic parameters predicates are divided into two most generalized classes: predicates of action and predicates of state” (Vykhovanets, 1983: 34). Predicates of action are associated with an active object, actor; predicates of state - with a passive object, a carrier of state, to whom the corresponding state belongs or is attributed. Only constitutive (obligatory) components of the sentences in Modern Greek are established, as non-constitutive (optional) ones are not relevant in terms of informativeness; their elimination does not cause loss of the semantic status of the sentence.
4. Object Syntaxeme as a Minimal Semantic and Syntactic Unit
Compatibility of a verb and a relevant actant is regulated by valence of the verb: a complex of syntagmatic semes that form the predicate structure of the sentence (Lander, 2010). The number of arguments is much more, which is motivated by a more complex frame of thought compared with its speech realization (Zahnitko, 1990: 14). In the Ukrainian language, left-sided valence of the verb at the semantic-syntactic level is represented by a subject (actor or carrier of a process or state) syntaxeme (minimal semantic and syntactic functional unit) (Vykhovanets, 1992: 58). Right-sided valence - by an object (subject to which an action or process is directed), recipient (person, to which an action is intended), instrumental (designation of specific specialised subjects), and locative syntaxeme (initial and end locative) (Vykhovanets, 1992: 58; Zahnitko, 1993: 63). Masytska specifies subtypes of the instrumental (“instrument of action”' function and “means of action” function) and locative syntaxemes (dynamic locative syntaxemes (locative syntaxemes in the meaning of the starting point of movement; locative syntaxemes in the meaning of the end point of movement; locative syntaxemes indicating the path of movement and static locative syntaxemes) (Masytska, 1998: 41-42).
Object relations belong to the category of semantic concepts represented in any language (Jarceva, 1972: 15). According to Vykhovanets, “Semantic segmentation of objective syntaxemes just as other substantial syntaxemes is primarily due to the semantic nature of the predicate: the most central syntaxeme in the semantic-syntactic structure of the sentence, whose valence creates a simple sentence, which is elementary from the semantic and syntactic point of view” (Vykhovanets, 1992: 118). As defined by Arutjunova, semantic relations between the object and predicate are significantly influenced by the object that determines the type of an action, aimed at creating the object, its modification or destruction (Arutjunova, 1976: 126).
The objective syntaxeme in the sentence structure indicates the object to which the subject's action is aimed. Signs of an objective syntaxeme as an abstract minimal semantic- syntactic unit include: 1) substantiality; 2) semantic simplicity; 3) valent bond with the predicate; 4) semantic differentiation depending on the type of the predicate; 5) morphological variation (case and preposition-case); 6) ability to appear in certain formal- syntactic and communicative positions of the sentence (Mezhov, 2005: 18). Unlike address, instrumental, locative syntaxemes, an objective syntaxeme is a part of the vast majority of elementary sentences, has the largest number of morphological variants and serves as a compulsory element of the sentence. The main differential features of objective syntaxemes are: 1) substantiality (object nature); 2) valent link with dynamic / static predicates; 3) rightsided valent position in relation to the predicate (in the language system); 4) passivity (Mezhov, 2005: 18).
According to the nature of the predicate, the objective syntaxemes are divided into semantic variants: object of action, object of process, object of state, object of qualitative attribute of relation, object of the locative predicate of action (classification by Vykhovanets) (Vykhovanets, 1992: 118); object of action (object of action, object of intellectual activity, object of speech activity, object of communication, targeting information to the recipient in transitive verbs; object provided with motion (object of motorics), object of help, gratitude in intransitive verbs); object of state (object of sense perception, object of intellectual status, object of emotional and evaluative attitude, object of positive-negative attitude, internal state and feeling, object of possession / non-possession, object of mental state, physiological processes, and sudden reactions as their expression, object of existence; object of locative predicate of action (object of relocation in space, object of motion); object of process; object of qualitative attribute of relation (classification by О. Lednei) (Lednei, 2003: 8-11); object of action (object of specific physical action, object of action-locativity, object of intellectual activity, object of speech activity, object of mental activity (perception)); object of process; object of state (object of emotional and mental state, object of intellectual status, object of state-relation, object of emotional and evaluative attitude, object of possession/non- possession (deprivation), object of resultative state); object of quality (object of proper qualitative attribute, object of quality-relationship (comparison); object of qualitative-modal relation); object of quantity-relation (comparison) (classification by О. Mezhov (Mezhov, 2005: 19-29)).
The choice of syntaxemes is largely affected by the communicative situation (Vykhovanets, 2004: 272). At the semantic level Zahnitko distinguishes between the following types of subject-predicate-object relations: 1) transformative relations: the subject changes the state or location of the object; 2) creative relations: the subject creates, reproduces or destroys the object; 3) address relations: the subject addresses the object;
4) factitive relations: the subject affects the will, feelings, mind of the object; 5) perceptual relations: the subject perceives the object through its sense organs; 6) cognitive relations: the subject knows the object as a result of mental activity; 7) emotional relations: the subject has a certain feeling to the object; 8) instrumental relations: the subject uses the object; 9) private relations: the subject needs the object (Zahnitko, 1990: 31-32).
It is determined that verbs with objective syntaxemes in Modern Greek form the following types of models:
1) predicate with the objective syntaxeme in the accusative case;
2) predicate with two syntaxemes;
3) predicate with variants of objective syntaxemes: a duplicated pronoun, a subordinate part.
The objective syntaxeme of a predicate expressed by a transitive verb is morphologically represented by:
1) noun: ОЛоі дёра ётрфау;:/оёр уіа va fiyaAovv ёуа бо/еіо Ладі (Kprapag, 1995: 1369). Nouns that serve as objective syntaxemes are characterized according to categorical signs of opposition of being / non-being, person / non-person, singular / plural;
2) pronoun: Tov катаапарасау 01 Лукоі (Kprapag, 1995: 686);
3) substantivated adjective: Епіаае тпу каЛу (Kprapag, 1995: 646);
4) substantivated participle: Eid' о трелор то дедуадёуо каі фо/ІуОркі: (Kprapag, 1995: 851);
5) substantivated exclamation: Ар/іає паЛі та а/ каї та ва/ (Kprapag, 1995: 227);
6) substantivated verb: Еіпер еу/аріатт атцу киріа; (Kprapag, 1995: 93);
7) subordinate part: Зёрт, оті ЛЄеі уёдата (Kprapag, 1995: 973).
5. Prototype Objective Syntaxeme in Modern Greek
Objective syntaxemes in the accusative case are common in the Modern Greek language. It should be noted that the main function of the accusative without a preposition is the object one. The accusative case is defined as a prototype case of the object (n катсго/qv ЛТГОСЛ yra тп bq/oioq tou Goun/qp^uarop). However, in Modern Greek the accusative case may also function as the nominal part of a composite predicate: Хе кадіатт упеувууо уіа о,ті aypfiei or acquire adverbial meaning: Пат апіті. In Modern Greek, accusative is used with prepositions to denote different attributive relations: definitive accusative: Еуа /аЛі 6ёка дётра рардор, accusative of quantity: Ауораае 6ёка пу/ер уфаада, accusative of object: Проао/у та /ёрш аар, accusative of content: То потурі еіуаі уедато уєро.
The differentiation of the type of syntaxeme expressed by the accusative in Modern Greek represents the intersection of paradigmatic and syntagmatic semes of the noun and verb.
Predicates with objective syntaxemes account for a high percentage (82%) in the Modern Greek language; these are causatives denoting the cause of action or state of another subject. In Modern linguistics, causatives are defined as verbs with a categorial seme of causativity. These are verbs of the active action, which is the cause of a state, quality or feature of another person or subject (Kil'dibekova 1984: 9). Components of a “causative situation” are two micro-situations interconnected by a causative relationship (Tipologija kauzativnyh konstrukcij, 1969: 5).
Classifications of causatives are based on various parameters, specifically: morphological (morphological causatives, lexical or suppletive causatives, analytic causatives), semantic (factitive causation/permissive causation, distant causation / contact causation), syntax (causatives from intransitive verbs, causatives from transitive verbs) (Ufimceva, 1986: 5-19, 28-29). According to semantic features, there are proper causative verbs (factitive proper causative verbs - an agence-causator requires from a patience unconditional fulfillment of its will with the unconditionally subordinate caused object to implement the conditions set by the causator or with the unconditionally subordinate caused object to implement certain actions; permissive proper causative verbs, meaning causation for voluntary fulfillment of the agence's will: to the benefit of the causator-agence or the patience itself), and latent causatives - verbal lexemes, which mean causation of the physical change of something (Mozghunov, 1997: 144, 176). According to the componential composition, there are verbs with causation as the only semantic property; verbs with additional meaning of the methods of causation; verbs with characteristics of the caused action (Chudinov, 1981: 58-59; Chudinov, 1982: 63).
If we agree with the idea that by grammatical characteristics verbs are divided into the verbs of action and the verbs of state, the question arises as to the causes of the characteristics inherent to the verbs of state, namely: stay in a particular state, designation of relationships, features. It is believed that in most cases these properties are the result of a certain action knowingly initiated by an actor. The seme expressing the motivation of the signs' occurrence of substances is interpreted in linguistics as causation. Thus, causative verbs are characterized by a complex semantic structure: a combination of the seme of action and seme of state (Kil'dibekova,1984: 9). Y. Apresjan believes that causative verbs have one valence more compared to non-causative. Causative verbs are mostly transitive, but unlike non-causative verbs, semantically related to the subject and object of action, at an in-depth level they take actants in the functions of the subject of causation and the subject of caused state (Apresjan, 1974: 46). Golab, following Kurylowicz, analysed the opposition causative / non-causative and defined causative as a transitive verb created by way of ablaut, suffixation, etc. from a non-transitive one with the same lexical root and a common abstract meaning. According to the researcher, the main function of “causativization” is regular transitiveness of non-transitive verbs (Krinickajte, 1978: 30). Norman also points out that the grammatical nature of causation is represented by the opposition transitive/intransitive verb. Causative verbs always add a direct object unlike causated verbs (Norman, 1972: 120-121). There is an opinion that causative verbs are derived from non-causative, connected with them by content derivation (Holodovich, 1979: 91).
Setatos identifies in Modern Greek factitive causative verbs (ретаРгРаотгка) denoting the orientation of the verbal action to change of the object: noiiZo, and proper causative verbs denoting the cause of a state: ВроріЈю. A test for determination is a transformation: кауо va - for the factitive verbs and уіуораі аітюр Уа - for the proper causative verbs (SsTarog, 1997: 205).
Results of the analysis show that in Modern Greek language causative and noncausative verbs can be represented by:
1. Verbs of one lexeme (“syntagmatic opposition” (Tipologija kauzativnyh konstrukcij, 1969: 21), “syntactic causative” (Chudinov, 1984: 21), “symmetrical type of opposition” (Kil'dibekova, 1984: 17)): ГиалЕо) та ёппла /ГуаХіСгі то патюра (Кргарад, 1995: 320). Мг поуоа^оиа/іааг аито то уаууто / Еуауа тоао урууора то фаї пои поуоатоиа/іааа, (Кргарад, 1995: 1136). Еклураіугі ту атаау тур у аутіполітгчау ату ВоиЛу /Мг тіу какоч/угр у WVXV тои$ акЛуриуг (Кргарад, 1995: 1238).
2. Verbs of different lexemes (“correlative-root opposition” (Tipologija kauzativnyh konstrukcij, 1969: 21)): Поті&і ка0г рёра тіу уЛаатргу (Кргарад, 1995: 1141) / Hivo уаЛа (Кргарад, 1995: 1109). Агу таіаа акору то рюро (Кргарад, 1995: 1329) / Тртрг крёау дио уорёу туу єрдорада (Кргарад, 1995: 1378).
3. Verbs formed by word creation means (“correlative-affix opposition” (Tipologija kauzativnyh konstrukcij, 1969: 21)):
- suffix -aZro: АугваЈю капоіоу ато дёутро (Кргарад, 1995: 98) / Аугваіую ато Воууо (Кргарад, 1995: 99). КатгваСю капоіоу апо то дёутро (Кргарад, 1995: 691) / Катгваіую та акаЛіа (Кргарад, 1995: 691). Мг коурааг ауту у поргіа (Кргарад, 1995: 754) / КоураЈораі ата таадіа (Кргарад, 1995: 754);
- suffix -і^го: Мои Оіпнаг та угуоуота (Кргарад, 1995: 599) / Оурараі ту фуаюууюріа тои (Кргарад, 1995: 599). Мг ка()іаг ато плаі тои (Кргарад, 1995: 628) / Кадораі атуу карёкЛа (Кргарад, 1995: 629). Котре) то рюро (Кргарад, 1995: 726) / Коірараі 1>а()ча (Кргарад, 1995: 726). О прутаууу оркіаг точу птч/іоч/очу (Кргарад, 1995: 1014) / Оркіатукг ато ЕуаууёХю (Кргарад, 1995: 1014). Мг со/ІРгі у гктгтарёуу уруау туу пиріуікуу гугругіау (Кргарад, 1995: 1446) / Му фоваааі! Еуа> гіраі гда> (Кргарад, 1995: 1916).
The peculiarity of the Modern Greek language is that semantic-word forming attributability is inherent also to the irregular verbs that are not used without affixes -par (so called reflexiva tantum).
Simple models formed by causative verbs have correlated complicated models, where syntactic means discover the meaning of causation: акохіТс) то рауаірі - кахт то рауаірі кофтгро (Kprapag, 1995: 43). A certain group of causative verbs has correlative verbs in the passive voice (“reverse-postfix type”) (Kil'dibekova, 1984: 16). By semantic features, these verbs can be described as follows: a causative verb in active voice has the meaning: “to provide someone or something with a state, sign”: AnoKon^aivro (Kavo Kanoiov svrsXrog коифо): Пауг піа. Мар апокоуфахгр рг тір аурюфтхаргр тои (Kprapag, 1995: 154). EsvrKsnro (Kavro каті ало pspiKo koivo): Ггхікгут гхах кахоха (Kprapag, 1995: 288). ESparrovro (Kavro Karr sdpaio, oraOspo): Едраг&хт тп Огтр рои (Kprapag, 1995: 414). /aZiZo (npoKalro os Kanoiov ZaXq): Тох СаХітах оі ахадуріатгір тру 1>г\\іхід (Kprapag, 1995: 553). Ea^vraZro (rpopaZro Kanoiov): Ms сафхіапгу stti пои рг (рахасгр (Kprapag, 1995: 961); a correlative verb in the passive voice has the meaning: “to be the bearer of a sign, to be in any state”: AnoKon^aivopar (%avro rpv aKop pou): Нтах Хіуо коууор апо пріх, аХХа тара апокоифахпкг (Kprapag, 1995: 154). EsvrKsnopar (yivopar Korvog): Ггхікгутпкг П ХрЙаП цХгктрохік&х упоХоуїттюх (Kprapag, 1995: 288). ESparrovopar (yivopar oraOspog): Едраіадпкг п піупоіОртр тои (Kprapag, 1995: 414). /aZuouai (vrroOro ZaZq): 0а Pym Хіуо s^o уіатіСаІЇСорат (Kprapag, 1995: 553). Ea^vraZopar (rpopaZro): Еаухіаттпка пои тг гіда ттп уіортц (Kprapag, 1995: 961).
This is the essence of decausative transformation, in which subject-object relationships of the active verb are broken and a new kind of the situation with the subject-bearer of sign is formed. By losing components of action, the verbs acquire semantics of state; this discloses the dialectical unity of action and state. Decrease in the degree of action (actionality) causes a proportional increase in the degree of state. Of special importance in this respect are causative and non-causative verbs represented by one lexeme, which we define as verbs with the variable valence (VVV). The transformation `causative - non-causative verb' in VVVs occurs without morphological changes of state.
6. Verbs with the Variable Valence as a Special Type of Causative Alternation
According to our definition, verbs with the variable valence comprise verbs with dual functioning: both transitive and intransitive (cf. approach by Zaika, where the variable valence implies change of the verb's valence following change of its morphological forms (Zaika, 2006: 53)). In our opinion, changes associated with modification in grammatical forms belong to the phenomena of lexical derivation). According to Petryk (2001), ergative (intransitive) meaning in the verbal lexeme is formed due to the valent shift and reframing of the hierarchy of participants that reflects “correlations between natural, cognitively selected and structured language situation and its verbal embodiment” (p. 8). As exemplified by verbs of the English language, the researcher distinguishes between ergative verbs using the following criteria: 1) object of transitive structure and subject of intransitive structure, expressed by the same lexeme; 2) in both of these syntactic positions the actant has the status of patience; 3) the transitive meaning of the verb is formally and semantically transitive, and intransitive meaning - formally and semantically intransitive (Petryk, 2001: 8). Letuchij interprets these verbs as “labile” and believes that in systems with numerous labile verbs, lability serves as a causative marker (Letuchij, 2004).
We believe that the variable valence of the verb enables to substitute the seme of action with the seme of state and vice versa without morphological changes: аткрраіхо): кахт капоіох аохпро: То ртіхітра аито тпх аткпааіхгі / уіхораї ат/прор, уахт трх орорфіа рои: Аокррухг тара пои ргуаХттг (Kprapag, 1995: 192). Verbs with the variable valence are common in Modern Greek. Klymenko points to the ability to “a large number of Greek verbs in the active voice to have both transitive and intransitive meaning depending on the context, i.e. beyond the form of one word, which provides the relative ease of transition of many verbal semes from the category of syntactically expressed in the category of latent at the level of word formation and represented only through semantics of the noun” [Klymenko, 2001: 70].
Setatos defines the following types of “diathesis transformations” in Modern Greek, which occur without any change of state:
- transitive verbs as intransitive: ауоіут тцу порта (active diathesis) - ауоіуеі ц порта (medium diathesis);
- intransitive verbs as transitive: арртатцае (passive diathesis) - р 'арртатцае ре тц фкиаріа тои (active diathesis=p 'екауе у 'арртатрао);
- verbs of active diathesis as self-reflexive: KiiZouv апіті (ту еруатеу) - KiiZouv апіті (ту тюктртеур
- verbs of active diathesis as reciprocal reflexive: пои да тоиу аутарюаоуу; - пои да аутар&аоуу;
- verbs of active diathesis as verbs of passive diathesis: (ц Театр о рауеірау) Хітуеі то воитуро - то воитиро л/тте/;
-verbs of passive diathesis as verbs of active diathesis: трі&і то паттра апо та вцрата - тріЈеі та ддутіа тои;
-verbs of reflexive diathesis as verbs of passive diathesis: ^прі^ораг (о fSiog) - ^прі^ораг (ало tov коирёа) (Ssidrog, 1997: 206).
In Modern Greek linguistics, the views on the problem classification of these verbs vary. Kleris and Bambiniotis interpret them as ergative and causative constructions [КХаіррд, 2005: 283]. According to the researchers, verbs of the 1st group are ergative (сруаогіка рррата) (Charalambakis defines them as еруатгка [ХараХарлакрд, 2001: 116]; Theofanopoulou-Kondou - as causative structures (исгаРфаопкср 5орёд) or causative pairs (истаРфаотікср svallaysg), which have the meaning of change of state (аНаур rpp катаотасрд) [08OфаvoлovXov-Кovтov, 2003: 237]), functioning mainly as transitive: капоіоу ауоіуеі каті - каті ауоіуеі.
Constructions with the ergative Modern Greek verbs used in transitive meaning have two actants: the actor (subject) and the object. In intransitive use of the verb, the object performs the syntactic function of the subject, which approximates these constructions to ergative languages. If the ergative verb is used as intransitive, it is impossible to indicate the doer, while in verbs that have passive voice it can be expressed only with the aid of поіцтікд аітіо: О Гіаууцу а.уоіуе. тцу пдрта/ц пдрта а.уоіуе. / (невірно) ц пдрта а.уоіуе. апд тоу Гіаууц / ц пдрта ауоі%тцке апд тоу Гіаууц (поіцтікд аітіо) (Клаїррр, 2005: 285). With ergative verbs, it is only possible to indicate the cause, i.e. the actor which is a non-being: То хтипцра а.уоіуе. тцу пдрта/ц пдрта а.уоіуе. апд то утупцца (КХаіррд, 2005: 286). However, as is known, ergative languages have two cases: nominative and ergative. The nominative case functions as the subject of an intransitive verb and object of a transitive one; the ergative case - as the subject of a transitive verb. Transitive verbs in ergative constructions are always active (Klimov, 1973; Hrakovskij, 1974; Bendini, 1985). There is no such special case in the Modern Greek language, so the term “ergative” is questionable. Verbs of the 2nd group are causative ones (цєтаРгРаотгка ріриага) with mainly intransitive usage: капоіоу дуц&уеі - каті дуцтуеі капоіоу denoting action with an actant undergoing a certain influence. Transitive verbs of this group are used with actants denoting causes of action or doer implementing an action: Гераае пріу тцу трау тои апд тіу акотоиреу / оі акотоиреу тоу уєрааау пріу тцу трау тои (Кіаіррд, 2005: 287). Ciupy believes that sentences with ergative verbs: H пдрта атоісе. resemble structures of reflexive diathesis (Аоцєд рєсрд SraOscqg): Аитд то прдркцра Хиуетаї еикоХа. The similarity of these sentences is that the object can operate as a subject. However, according to the researcher, these sentences are not identical; it is confirmed by several criteria determining the construction as ergative, specifically:
1) the argument of sentences with an ergative verb is only patience; arguments of the sentences with reflexive verbs on the in-depth level are both agence and patience. This can be tested by adding a phrase “ano povo tou” - himself, herself, itself. While a sentence with an ergative verb allows for the use of this phrase: H порта avoice ano povp ipp, a sentence with a reflexive verb becomes incorrect if this phrase is added: To /hfikio §іараЈетаі (impossible: ano povo tou);
2) constructions with ergative verbs convey the meaning of the completed action, while constructions with verbs of reflexive diathesis imply incompleteness, even in the past tense: To nouKauiao aiSepavoiav evKoka; 3) constructions of the reflexive diathesis allow transformation with the verb pnopro: To qopepa pnopei va nkudei evKoka [Sronnp, 1996; Sronnp,1997; Sronnp, 1999]. Therefore, the researcher defines constructions of reflexive diathesis as non-ergative (avcpyaoriKa) [Sronnp, 1999: 447].
According to another opinion, verbs with the variable valence are united into two groups:
1) indirectly intransitive and transitive (causative) verbs (pppara psaa apsrdPara - ратаРатгка (истаРфаопка)). It is believed that these verbs can be used both in transitive and intransitive meaning: H aSe/xpp pou avaye ip Qaiia. H qaiia avaye. The main peculiarity of this group of verbs is that the construction `Subject - Predicate - Object' can change, namely the object of transitive verbs can function as the subject of the relevant nontransitive verbs without changing the state of the verb. Verbs included in this category enable to describe an action from the perspective of its causator (agence (Spacipg), cause (anta), instrument (opyavo)) and the perspective of the one influenced by it. The selected perspective determines the transitive or intransitive functioning of the verb associated with the speaker's intention: if the meaning of causator is accentuated, a construction with a transitive verb is used; if the result is important - with an intransitive one: H ftpo/fi ei/e lalh'iiaei тп Qaiia/p qaiia ei/e aTpaei.. In terms of semantic-syntactic characteristics, this group includes verbs denoting:
...Подобные документы
The development of Word Order. Types of syntactical relations words in the phrase, their development. The development of the composite sentence. The syntactic structure of English. New scope of syntactic distinctions and of new means of expressing them.
лекция [22,3 K], добавлен 02.09.2011Analysis of expression of modality in English language texts. Its use as a basic syntactic categories. Evaluation modalities of expression of linguistic resources. Composite modal predicate verb is necessary in the sense of denial assumption corresponds.
курсовая работа [29,1 K], добавлен 10.01.2015The problems as the types of sentences in English, their construction, parts of the sentence. Structure of sentence, parts of the sentence. The development of transform grammar and tagmemic grammar. Semi-notional words connecting two words or clauses.
курсовая работа [20,0 K], добавлен 07.07.2009Features of English Nouns. The Category of Case. The Category of Number of English Nouns. Structural Semantic Characteristics of English, morphological, syntactical Characteristics of Nouns. The Use of Articles with Nouns in Some Set Expsessions.
дипломная работа [96,9 K], добавлен 10.07.2009The structure of words and word-building. The semantic structure of words, synonyms, antonyms, homonyms. Word combinations and phraseology in modern English and Ukrainian languages. The Native Element, Borrowed Words, characteristics of the vocabulary.
курс лекций [95,2 K], добавлен 05.12.2010The concept of semasiology as a scientific discipline areas "Linguistics", its main objects of study. Identify the relationship sense with the sound forms, a concept referent, lexical meaning and the morphological structure of synonyms in English.
реферат [22,2 K], добавлен 03.01.2011Syntactic structures in the media. Characteristic features of language media. Construction of expressive syntax. Syntactic structures in the newspaper "Sport Express" and "Izvestia". Review features of sports journalism and thematic range of syntax.
курсовая работа [24,7 K], добавлен 30.09.2011Constituent analyses of the sentence. Complication of predicate and types of complications. The link-verbs in English and their translation into Uzbek and Russian. Transitivity of verbs and the problems of translating them into Uzbek, Russian languages.
дипломная работа [295,6 K], добавлен 21.07.2009Grammar in the Systemic Conception of Language. Morphemic Structure of the Word. Communicative Types of Sentences. Categorial Structure of the Word. Composite Sentence as a Polypredicative Construction. Grammatical Classes of Words. Sentence in the Text.
учебное пособие [546,3 K], добавлен 03.10.2012А complex comparison of morphological characteristics of English and Ukrainian verbs. Typological characteristics, classes and morphological categories of the English and Ukrainian verbs. The categories of person and number, tenses, aspect, voice, mood.
дипломная работа [162,2 K], добавлен 05.07.2011Exploring the concept and the subject matter of toponymy. Translation of place names from English to Ukrainian. The role of names in linguistic, archaeological and historical research. Semantic and lexical structure of complex geographical names.
курсовая работа [50,1 K], добавлен 30.05.2014Phrases as the basic element of syntax, verbs within syntax and morphology. The Structure of verb phrases, their grammatical categories, composition and functions. Discourse analysis of the verb phrases in the novel "Forsyte Saga" by John Galsworthy.
курсовая работа [55,2 K], добавлен 14.05.2009Studying the appearance of neologisms during the Renaissance, semantic features of neologisms in modern English, the types of neologisms, their division by their structure. Analysis sociolinguistic aspects of mathematical education based on neologisms.
дипломная работа [60,2 K], добавлен 18.03.2012Slang as the way in which the semantic content of a sentence can fail to determine the full force and content of the illocutionary act being performed in using the sentence. Features of American students’ slang functioning. Teen and high school slang.
курсовая работа [49,2 K], добавлен 08.07.2015The subject of the sentence in two grammatical categories: number and person. Grammatical categories of the verbals. Morphological classification of verbs. The main difference between the strong and weak verbs. The principal forms and minor groups.
презентация [200,7 K], добавлен 20.10.2013The morphological structure of a word. Morphemes. Types of morphemes. Allomorphs. Structural types of words. Principles of morphemic analysis. Derivational level of analysis. Stems. Types of stems. Derivational types of words.
реферат [11,3 K], добавлен 11.01.2004What is social structure of the society? The concept of social structure was pioneered by G. Simmel. The main attributes of social structure. Social groupings and communities. Social status. Structural elements of the society’s fundamental institutions.
реферат [25,4 K], добавлен 05.01.2009Understanding of the organization and its structure. Any organization has its structure. Organizational structure is the way in which the interrelated groups of the organization are constructed. Development of management on the post-Soviet area.
реферат [24,7 K], добавлен 18.01.2009Study of different looks of linguists on an accentual structure in English. Analysis of nature of pressure of the English word as the phonetic phenomenon. Description of rhythmic tendency and functional aspect of types of pressure of the English word.
курсовая работа [25,7 K], добавлен 05.01.2011Different approaches to meaning, functional approach. Types of meaning, grammatical meaning. Semantic structure of polysemantic word. Types of semantic components. Approaches to the study of polysemy. The development of new meanings of polysemantic word.
курсовая работа [145,2 K], добавлен 06.03.2012
