Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Syntactic relations

VALENCE, the ability of a word to be combined in a text with another linguistic unit, primarily with another word (cf. the term “valence” in chemistry, which serves to describe the ability of chemical elements to form compounds of a particular structure). The term was introduced into linguistics by L. Tenier and A.V. de Groot and was originally applied only to verbs. For example, verb ask assumes that it may indicate the petitioner (the one who asks), the subject of the request (what or what is being asked for) and the addressee of the request (the one who or from whom is asked). Therefore they say that the verb ask trivalent (who, whom, about what); compare: The Duke asked the King for mercy. The plurality of valences of a verb forms it valence structure. Valences, as they say, are “filled in”; word valence fillers are called it actants. In principle, a word can be valence not only on another word, but also on a phrase or even a sentence, cf.: ask for mercy on all relatives or ask,so that he pardons all the relatives of the executed.

Valences are usually ordered by numbers: the first is called the subjective, the second is the valence of the direct object, the subsequent order is more free. However, if a word does not have a “canonical” first or second valency, its number goes to the next valence in order; yes, the verb laugh the first will be the valence of the subject (who is laughing), and the second will be the valence of the indirect object expressing the stimulus for laughter (at whom/what is laughing).

At first, when the term “valence” was just entering linguistic terminology, it was used to describe the superficial, syntactic connections of a verb. In general, in world linguistics, where the term “valence structure” is not used very widely (cf. the competing term “argument structure”), this understanding has largely been preserved to this day, however, in the tradition of the Moscow semantic school, the concept of valency has received significant development.

Firstly, within the framework of this theory it is believed that obligatory connections, similar to verbal ones, are also inherent in other parts of speech - in particular, adjectives (cf. angry who, to whom, for what: Kolya is back,angry with me/ for that,that I'm late) and noun ( sister whom - Herman). Secondly, due to the fact that the syntactic connections inherent in a word may not be obligatory (this is especially typical for verbs that are capable of syntactically subordinating various kinds of optional circumstances - time, place, reason, etc., cf. came back in the evening / with a friend / due to bad weather etc.), the concept was introduced optional valency. Thirdly, it became clear that the syntactic relations of a word are determined by its semantics. A word that has syntactic valencies always correlates with a situation that has a certain set of obligatory participants; these participants express themselves superficially when using a word, filling in syntactic valences - thereby syntactic valences explicate those semantic relations that connect the name of the situation and the names of its participants. It follows that we can talk not only about syntactic, but also about semantic valences of a word.

Semantic valences correspond to obligatory variables in the interpretation of a word. In turn, these variables appear in interpretation as “heirs” of the semantic valences of simpler predicates included in the interpretation. Wed. builder= "one who builds"; predicate build bivalent (“who builds what”) – a predicate name derived from it builder itself fills its first, subjective valency and preserves the objective, cf. build a metro – subway builders. The procedure of inheritance of semantic valences explains their nature, but the nuances of this procedure have not yet been studied using any representative language material. In particular, the differences in the surface design of the original and inherited semantic valences have not yet been explained, cf. court as a derived predicate noun from a verb judge, however judge someone(*over whom), But trial of whom(*whom).

Unlike syntactic ones, semantic valences turn out to be semantically filled and differ not just by numbers, but by the type of semantic relationship expressed and, thus, seem to be analogous semantic roles (cm. CASE). At the same time, the number of semantic roles varies within a dozen - whereas in the book by Yu.D. Apresyan, which has become a classic Lexical semantics There are 25 types of semantic valences, including subject valences ( train moves), counterparty ( defend yourself from a spaniel), recipient ( give children), addressee ( inform the president), result ( turn into water), period ( vacation for two months), quantity ( more by a meter) etc. Such a list may also contain a more detailed classification of types of valencies - the degree of fragmentation in this case is limited by the following condition: valences that are close in meaning are considered different if they occur as part of the valence structure of one word. These are, for example, the valency of the instrument and means ( write with a quill pen and black ink), counterparty and intermediary ( buy from a company through an agent), etc.

Theoretically, all types of valences could be found in one lexeme - after all, the number of valences in a word is, in principle, unlimited. For example, an adjective has one valency Beautiful, requiring to indicate only the bearer of the attribute (who is handsome). Meanwhile, the average number of valences of a word is more likely 3–4, cf. above verb ask, and also cut(who, what, with what, on what), angry(who, to whom, for what), etc. A six-place verb is considered “multivalent” send on business(who, whom, from where, where, for what purpose, for how long) and other verbs of causation of movement, cf. take(who, whom/what, on what, from where, where, along what route, why), however, the number of obligatory semantic valences identified with them does not exceed 7. At the same time, superficially with a given word, these seven do not necessarily have to be expressed all at once . Namely, semantic valence may remain unexpressed for the following reasons. Firstly, it can be filled out anaphorically, cf. – Where do the firewood come from?? – From the forest,obviously: father,can you hear,chops,and I I'm taking you away , where the valency of the starting point ( from the forest) and object valence ( firewood) verb take are expressed in the previous sentence, and the valence of transport is expressed even earlier ( I see,horse slowly climbs uphill,cart carrying brushwood). Secondly, valence can be filled deictically - this is the valence of the final item in the example just given, understood as “I’m taking you home,” i.e. "to the place where the speaker thinks of himself." Thirdly, valence may not be expressed as unimportant in a given situation, cf.: he took the child to school, where transport is implied, but not expressed precisely as unimportant for the speaker. Finally, valency can be filled once and for all in the interpretation itself, and therefore not be expressed superficially (in such cases they speak of a fixed or incorporated actant), cf. verb take(took money from the safe), which implies that the money was in the hands of the one who took it.

It follows that the connection between semantic and syntactic valences does not mean their obligatory one-to-one correspondence: a word, as just shown, may have fewer syntactic valences than semantic ones. However, there may be more of them - due to the effect that is commonly called valence splitting.

With this splitting, the verb receives additional syntactic valency, which corresponds to the semantic valency of one of its actants. Thus, the valency for this actant is, as it were, split into two, one of which is expected for a given verb, and the second is “extra.” For example, the word scratch has an object valence, which is usually filled with names of body parts, cf. scratch your ear/back, which, in turn, are characterized by a valency on the “owner” of the body part - a person or an animal. As a result of splitting scratch receives not only a direct object, but also an indirect one in the dative case, expressing the owner affected by the action ( scratched the cat's ear, Wed also another distribution of syntactic connections for this splitting: scratched the cat behind the ear). Examples of other verbs that allow valence splitting: stroke a child's cheek¬ stroke a child's cheek;compare new and old car in terms of power¬ compare the power of a new and old car; look into her eyes¬ look into her eyes; check seeds for germination¬ check seed germination.

In a sense, the opposite of splitting is the syncretic expression of valences: in this case, one form combines the expression of two semantic relations. For example, transport with the verb drive (go by car) combines place and means of movement, and the prepositional combination about the towel with the verb wipe combines object and tool.

Thus, the syntactic valence structure is not a simple reflection of the semantic one. In support of this, adjective combinations like ripe peach, in which the predicate word is an adjective - it has semantic valence on the bearer of the attribute, and this valence is filled by the noun ( peach). But syntactically, on the contrary, the adjective is subordinate to the noun. Thus, it turns out that in such cases syntactic relations are in no way connected with deep - semantic ones. To resolve this contradiction, we can introduce the opposition active And passive valencies. Active valence is the valence of the subordinating word. Everything that has been said so far about the properties of valences has concerned specifically active valences, because By default, valences are understood as just the connections of the subordinating word. At the same time, the connection between a subordinate word and a subordinating word can also be called valence - only passive. Then, when describing adjectival combinations, a certain continuity between the syntactic and semantic valence structure is preserved: at the semantic level ripe has an active valency, but in syntactic form it retains it, but as a passive one. (Another way to “align” the syntactic and semantic representation in this zone is to use the syntactic concept introduced by I.M. Boguslavsky instead of the concept of “syntactic valence” scope of action, including any fragment of syntactic representation that fills semantic valency.)

Syntactic relations are connections of words, parts of sentences and independent sentences in a text. Syntactic relations relate to the content of the language.

There are no one-to-one correspondences between connections and relationships, that is, the same relationships are expressed by several types of connections and vice versa.

Syntactic relations are divided into predicative and non-predicative. Predicative relations are realized by connecting the subject and the predicate. Non-predicative relations are usually divided into attributive, objective and adverbial. Determinative relations involve the qualification of a grammatical subject, usually expressed by a noun, in terms of the qualities of properties inherent in it. Determinative relations are realized in substantivized phrases with a dependent component expressed by an adjective, participle, ordinal number, infinitive, noun, adverb: kind person, first class, polka dot dress, riding a horse.

Object relations presuppose the qualification of an action or state through its relationship to a subject (object), stable in this case are dependent words expressed in the case or prepositional case form of a noun, and the main component can be expressed by a verb, as well as a noun semantically related to the verb (conversation ), adjective (submissive), adverb (dangerous).

Circumstantial relations presuppose the qualification of an action or state from the place and time of its implementation, purpose, reason, conditions, and so on. Usually adverbial relations are fixed in verb phrases: to float a river, to run somewhere, although such relations are possible in other phrases.

When analyzing specific examples, researchers come to the conclusion that syntactic relations are constantly mixed with each other: for example, in the phrase talk about love, the question can be formulated both as about what?, and as what?

All types of relations are realized in phrases that are externally revealed through three methods of subordinate (subordinative) communication: coordination, control and adjacency.

Management concept

Control is the most visual and unambiguous way of expressing combinable words in grammar. Control models specify the correspondence between the active syntactic valences of a word and the means of their expression in the dependent group - for example, the prepositional case form. The type of connection in which the presence of an active valency in a word requires a certain grammatical design of the corresponding dependent group is called control.

Thus, control is a subordinating relationship in which the dominant component of a phrase requires the statement of the dependent component in a certain grammatical form, and a change in the form of the dominant word does not cause a change in the form of the controlled word. Control is often defined as a connection directed from a word to the form of a word. In the Russian language, the exception is three cases when control is determined not by a word, but by a morphological form: 1) the grammeme of the comparative degree of the adjective controls the IG form of the standard of comparison in gender. n., (stronger than death); 2) infinitive control of dates. subject item (it will rain); 3) management models determined by collateral.

In Indo-European languages, control is found mainly in the addition of a prepositional or non-prepositional word form of a noun (pronoun) in a certain indirect case to the dominant word. For example, a transitive verb usually requires the placement of a noun in vin. pad. without a preposition (He loves his homeland) In many Slavic languages, a transitive verb with negation controls the word form in gender. n. (I don’t read books).

Any significant word can act as the dominant component. In Russian, as in many other languages, the verb has the widest system of control connections. Sometimes they talk about the ability to manage and function words, for example, in Latin. - prepositions requiring a specific case form in Arabic. particles on which Ch. depends. mood.

Since control is, first of all, a formally expressed phenomenon, verbs that are similar or even semantically identical can have different controls in different languages (Latin adjuvo hominem Vin. Pad., I help a person - Dan. case) or even in the same language (to laugh at someone - or, to ridicule someone). However, unlike agreement, the choice of a controlled word form also largely depends on the lexical-grammatical group to which the dominant word belongs. So, in Russian. language with verbs that name actions that presuppose the subject of their immediate application, this subject is most often expressed in the form of wines. case without a preposition (direct object). Special case forms express the relations of the object-addressee or the object-instrument of action, if these meanings are allowed by the semantics of the corresponding verb. The dependence of the control of a verb on its word-formation meaning can also be expressed by a certain prefix (run into a tree - drive away from the house).

In Russian language when controlling a verb, relationships arise: objective (build a house), replenishing (become a teacher), as well as object-replenishing (overgrow with grass) or object-defining (hit the goal). The control of the verb can be not only single, but also double (pay the master for his work). When governing a noun, object and complementary relations are almost always complicated by attributive ones (gift to grandmother, movement for peace). When controlling adjectives, predominantly informational-replenishing relationships arise (worthy of love).

There is a difference between strong and weak management (A.M. Peshkovsky). Thus, strong control arises when expressing information-replenishing and object relations (control of actants). Using distributors is mandatory here (become a teacher). “By strong control we understand such a dependence of a noun or a preposition with a noun on a verb in which there is a necessary connection between a given case or a given preposition with a given case, on the one hand, and the dictionary or grammatical side of the verb, on the other hand” (Peshkovsky) . Control, in which object relations are contaminated with determinative ones, is usually referred to as weak control (window to the south, write in pencil).

Control can be variable (or modified). Variability is due to the presence in the language of means of communication and forms that can express the same meanings, as well as the complexity of the meaning of a word associated with different semantic groups. This is how combinations arise that are identical in meaning (give in to persuasion - to be persuaded) or differ in shades of meaning or stylistically (ask for bread - ask for bread).

So - control - joining to the main word noun. in the form of an indirect case and the designation of complementary or objective relations is strong, when contaminated with attributive relations it is weak (cut with a saw).

Let control be the choice of the syntactic form that makes up X, which is determined by the grammatical feature f of the word form w:

X fills the syntactic valency w;

X does not dominate w (= w is not part of X);

If f is a grammeme of w, then f is not a grammeme of X.

I.A. Melchuk lists the following cases of management in Russian. The following are controlled: 1) syntactic actants of the verb, noun and adjective (Chopin’s performance by Gilels); 2) IG-addition of the preposition (on the table); 3) the verb introduced by the conjunction “so that” is always in the subjunctive mood; 4) a noun with a numeral in it. or wine p. (two tables); 5) an adjective in the gender of a predicative name with some verbs (knew him when he was young); 6) IG-actant with a morphologically expressed comparative degree of the adjective (stronger than the bear).

From valentia - “strength” - the ability of a word to enter into syntactic connections with other elements. This term was first introduced into linguistics by Katsnelson (1948). L. Tenier introduced the term “valence” into Western European linguistics to denote compatibility. The syntactic structure of a sentence is determined by the grammatical properties of the lexemes included in it, primarily by their selective features. Only a sentence in which the selective features of the words included in it are consistent with each other is grammatically correct. By analogy with chemistry, selective features of lexemes are called valences in linguistics. Lexemes can have both semantic and syntactic valences.

Compatibility is the property of linguistic units to be combined when forming units of a higher level; one of the fundamental properties of linguistic units, reflecting the syntagmatic relationships between them. There are universal and specific linguistic laws and compatibility tendencies; deviation from the latter leads to a violation of the norm or to a change in the properties of linguistic units. Deliberate changes in compatibility can be a means of artistic expression. The compatibility of different types differs: depending on the position - contact and distant (at a distance); depending on the factors - conditional (determined by the presence of distinctive features in the language elements) and arbitrary (determined only by the accepted norm; depending on the level of the language - formal and semantic). The compatibility of words is determined by grammatical, lexical, semantic factors and is studied by the theory of collocations. Grammatical compatibility is determined by the belonging of words to parts of speech. At the lexical level, combinability is manifested in the selectivity of lexemes, for example, “to provide a service, attention,” but “not to provide care, interest.” At the semantic level, the combinability of words is determined by semantic agreement (the components of the combination should not have contradictory semes, for example, an adjective denoting the property of a living being must be combined with the animate noun “sick person”, otherwise the norm is violated or one of the components “sick conscience” is rethought ").

Tenier attributed valency only to the verb and defined it as the number of actants that the verb can attach. He distinguished between avalent verbs (impersonal “it is dawning”), univalent (intransitive P. “sleeping”), bivalent (transitive “he is reading a newspaper”), trivalent (“he gives a book to his brother”) and described means of changing verbal valency (voice, reflexive form, causative construction, lexical verb pairs like “go”<->send").

The characteristics of lexical valency that determine its implementation are:

1. General type of valence: active valence (the ability of a word to attach a dependent element)/passive valence (the ability of a word to attach to the dominant component of a combination).

2. Obligatory valence: obligatory/optional V. (a concept correlated with strong and weak control). A word opens up a number of positions in a sentence, some of which must be filled in, others not. In the phrase “He took the book from the closet,” “book” is an obligatory valence, “from the closet” is optional. Verbs of incomplete predication (to have, put, give, do, hold, be, etc.) and their narrow synonyms (to imagine, to render, to carry out, etc.) have obligatory active valency. Among nouns, names of action (father’s arrival), qualities have obligatory valence (the beauty of the landscape), relative (Mary’s father), categorical (type, example, result), parametric (the origin of the language, the height of the house, the color of the dress), etc.

The absence of a dependent component may indicate a change in the meaning of the word: expansion (to love beauty), narrowing (the father (of this family) came) or transfer (take the height of a mountain). The possibilities of word combination reduction are associated with valence. Valence can also be transformed under certain contextual conditions: for example, the word “beginning” may lose its obligatory valency under anaphora (the meaning of one expression includes a reference to another).

3. Number of valences, for example, one, two, trivalent verbs.

4. Syntactic function of the complementary member: for example, with a verb, the valence may be subjective (He is sleeping), objective (He is holding a pen), adverbial (He lives in Moscow), predicative (He became a doctor),

5. Form of an additional member (part of speech, word or sentence, form of connection), cf. "I know this, I know this man, I know that he came, He showed me his house."

6. Categorical semantics of a word that realizes valence (for verbs, for example, the semantic categories of subject and object such as animate/inanimate, concrete/abstract, countable/non-countable, etc. are also important). Any qualitative or quantitative change in the valence of a word may indicate a shift in its meaning.

The semantic valence, or participant, of a lexeme L is any (incoherent) variable X included in the interpretation (description of the meaning of the lexeme). Any lexeme that has one or more participants is called a predicate word, or predicate. For example, the participants of the verb “catch up” are the variables X (who is catching up) and Y (who is catching up with). The participants of the noun “answer” are X (whose answer), Y (whom the answer is), Z (the content of the answer) and W (stimulus, t . e. content of the question). “A word has as many valencies as there are participants in the situation that need to be mentioned in order to interpret it in a comprehensive and non-redundant manner” (Boguslavsky).

Those linguistic expressions that fill L in a sentence in which L is included are called semantic actants of L.

The selective feature, which indicates that the lexeme L can have the word W (or a component of the phrasal category C) as a vertex or as a dependent word, is called the syntactic valence of L. The syntactic valency on the dependent word is called active, or internal, and the syntactic valence on the vertex is called passive, or external. For example, the word “better” (adverb to a comparable degree) has a passive valence on the verb (works better) and an active valence on the standard of comparison, which can be expressed as a gender clause (better than me), or a comparative phrase (better than I). Passive syntactic valencies are determined mainly by the part of speech to which the word belongs. Active syntactic valencies, or at least those of most interest, are determined by the lexical meaning of the word. Syntactic valencies inherent in parts of speech are called categorical. There are also syntactic valences that not all words of a certain part of speech possess, but only some of them (for example, only transitive verbs require a direct object; not all prepositions require an IG in a preposition, etc.). Such valences are called intraparticular or subcategorical. The most important subcategorical valences inherent in a certain lexeme should be reflected in the dictionary in the form of its “syntactic passport” - a control model.

A unit that fills in a sentence containing the lexeme L, the active syntactic valency L and at the same time corresponds to some semantic valence (participant) L, is called a syntactic actant (hereinafter simply actant) L; a unit that fills an active syntactic valence L that does not correspond to any semantic valence L is called a circonstant L.

Syntactic relations in a phrase, endocentric - exocentric construction, composition - subordination. The concept of coordination. Fundamental differences between the concepts of coordination and control.

Words in sentences are connected by syntactic relationships without breaks (direct connection), but due to the absence of breaks between any two words in a sentence, an indirect connection can be established - through other words. We can say that any connected chain of word forms that is not part of another connected chain can be considered a sentence. Syntactic relations are usually binary. Syntactic relationships often arise between words that are closely related semantically—they “define” or “complement” each other’s meaning. Syntactic relations are unequal: one of the words is “more important” than the other. Syntactic relationships are typically shown as arrows. The syntactic structure of the chain consists of two parts:

1) a set of word forms contained in a chain

2) sets of n-ary syntactic relations defined on a set of word forms.

If there is a dependence relationship between word forms X -> Y, then they say that X subordinates Y, or Y depends on X. There are also noun terms denoting word forms that enter into a syntactic relationship: X is called the top (or master, or core, or main word) in relation to Y, and Y - dependent (or servant, or dependent word) in relation to X. There is also an indirect dependence.

Syntactic relations can be represented as a graph (or tree) consisting of points connected by arrows. The elements of the graph are called nodes, the element (node) from which the arrow comes out is called the beginning, the element into which the arrow enters is called the end. Nodes that are not the beginning of any arrows (arcs) are called hanging or leaves; nodes that are neither the beginning nor the end of any arcs are called isolated.

A finite graph is called a tree if: a) it has a finite node (called a root node or root) that is not the end of any arc; b) each of its nodes, different from the root one, is the end of the same arc; c) there are no closed paths in it. For most sentences, all three conditions included in the definition of a tree are met: condition a), which can be called the principle of uniqueness of the root node (there is exactly one word in the sentence that does not have a vertex), condition b) - the principle of uniqueness of the vertex (a word can have only one vertex), and condition c) is the principle of prohibition on the contour, i.e. closed structure.

There are also pairs of syntactically related word forms in which the selective features of the whole do not coincide with the selective features of either of the two component word forms. These are combinations with prepositions like “on the mountains”, with subordinating conjunctions or with auxiliary verbs. The difficulty lies in the fact that prepositions and subordinating conjunctions are not used in isolation, without dependent words, in complete sentences, and auxiliary verbs are used in a different lexical meaning, therefore it is impossible to establish features that are characteristic only of them and not of the entire combination.

Combinations of words whose distribution does not coincide with the distribution of any of their constituent words are called exocentric, and combinations whose distribution coincides (or almost coincides) with the distribution of one of their constituent words (namely the vertex) are called endocentric.

The criterion of endocentricity does not give results in cases where both the dependent and the vertex refer to the same part of speech, as a result of which their most important passive valences coincide (sister's teacher, hero city, etc.).

On that mountain stood a house with a red roof.

On that mountain stood a house with a red roof

This proposal presents several simple designs.

1). on + N sentence (noun in P. p) with the general meaning of “location of the scene of action”) The first position in this construction can also be replaced by the prepositions В and ПР.

2). with + N creates. with a generalized meaning of compatibility

3). A acc. + N, i.e. an adjective that agrees with the noun. This design uses 2 paths: "that mountain" and "red roof"

4). N im. + V acc., i.e. noun. in Im. p. + verb in personal form that agrees with it.

There are constructions in which one element can always be omitted and the grammatical correctness of the statement will be preserved. These are endocentric structures (construction 3). Instead of the words “that mountain,” you can simply say “mountain” without loss of grammatical correctness. On the contrary, constructions 1, 2, 4 do not have this property; they are called exocentric. It is not difficult to identify the main element in endocentric ones, but more difficult in exocentric ones. The solution is facilitated by analysis of the nature of grammatical connections between the elements of constructions. An indicator of the syntactic connection between the elements of constructions can be both affixation and analytical grammatical means. In languages with affixation, there are two specific techniques for expressing syntactic connections: agreement and control.

Under no circumstances can a phrase “transition” into a sentence, become a sentence: these are units of different syntactic quality, with different syntactic features. The grammatical features of a phrase, as opposed to a sentence, are:

1). formal and lexical-semantic organization, predetermined by one or another type of subordinating (verbal) connection;

2). linguistic meaning equal to the relationship arising from such a connection;

3). possibilities of change, determined by the rules of form change of the dominant word;

4). its own rules of distribution and entry into more complex, expanded constructions of the same grammatical nature;

5). its operating rules;

6). their systemic relationships with phrases of a different structure.

None of these characteristics (which exist, like the characteristics of any other linguistic unit, always inseparably, in a complex) does the phrase coincide with the sentence, which has a complex of its own (completely different) linguistic characteristics. Therefore, comparing the phrases “train to Moscow”, “woman in a raincoat”, “house by the lake”, “clear morning” with the sentences “Train - to Moscow”, “Woman - in a raincoat”, “House - by the lake”, “ Clear morning (Morning - clear)" we must remember that these compared units coincide only in the word forms included in them. They do not coincide in terms of modification rules, nor in their syntactic meanings.

Two word forms are syntactically related if they form a single phonetic complex. A phonetic complex is a segment of a sentence that can appear in speech in isolation and is usually pronounced without internal pauses or with minimal pauses. One of the criteria that separates a peak from a dependent one is the criterion of endocentricity. One member of a syntagm (word combination) subordinates the second if the first is characterized by the same features that are characteristic of the entire syntagm.

To do this, it is necessary to establish which properties coincide between the vertex and the entire phrase. Selective (combinability) properties of a linguistic unit are its ability or inability to be combined with other units in the same language chain.

Such combinations of words, the distribution of which does not coincide with the distribution of any of their constituent words, are called exocentric, and combinations whose distribution coincides (or almost coincides) with the distribution of one of their constituent words (namely the vertex) are called endocentric.

CONCORDING- a subordinating relationship between the components of a phrase, in which grammes or part of the grammes of the dominant word are repeated in the dependent word. In other words, the obligatory coincidence or correspondence of grammes in some words is called agreement. When the main word changes, the dependent word also changes. In languages that have a developed system of inflections, agreement is widely used to express attributive phrases (green forest, green grass). Agreement and control are two different types of morphological dependence between words, and morphological dependence is usually accompanied by syntactic dependence.

Coherence is a weak coupling. In attributive phrases of this type, nouns or other parts of speech with the meaning of objectivity are used as the dominant component, and words that change according to gender, number and case are used as a grammatically dependent, semantically defining component; full adjectives (including counting and pronominal), participles, articles, numerals in the indirect case, as well as nouns in the application function (new house, first meeting, two brothers, advanced worker).

The number of grammes repeated in the components of a phrase depends both on the number of grammes expressed by the main word and on the number of inflectional categories inherent in the dependent word. The adjective noun agrees with the main component in number and case (woman astronaut). In French, in a substantive phrase, both the adjective and the article agree with the noun in gender and number, and the article has distinctive gender forms only in the singular. number.

The specific rules of agreement vary between languages. They undergo changes during the historical development of the language. So, in Russian. language traces of agreement between short adjectives and nouns were preserved only in stable combinations (on bare feet, in broad daylight). In Old Russian. numerals agreed with the noun not only in the indirect cases, but also in the nominative (three guests, but three volosts, three wives). Later, coordination in such situations gave way to management.

So: agreement is the assimilation of the form of a dependent word to the form of the main word in gender, number and case, or in number and case, or only in case. The main word is a noun, a pronoun noun or a cardinal number in the form Im. or In the fall. This is the rule of likening numerals and nouns.

Let's consider four simple cases of agreement in Russian:

1. agreement of full adjectives (including participles and adjective pronouns) with the noun in number and case: wide river, wide river, wide rivers

2. agreement of the predicate with the subject in number: I will come - we will come

3. agreement of a full adjective with a noun in gender: wide river - wide bridge

4. agreement of the predicate with the subject in person (for verbs in the present and future tense) and in gender (for verbs in the past tense and short adjectives): she came - he came; he is handsome - she is beautiful.

The differences between these four types of matching are very important. Let's list them.

The categories of person and gender are dictionary fixed for nouns - a noun does not change the meanings of the categories of person and gender. Such categories are called (word)classifying, or stable. The categories of number and case are not fixed for nouns in the dictionary - the same lexeme-noun can appear in different numbers and cases. Such categories are called inflectional or current. In types 1 and 2, current categories are presented - number and case, in types 3 and 4 stable categories - number and gender.

Agreement of the junctive type (1 and 3) occurs within the noun phrase (between its vertex and dependents), agreement of the nexus type (2 and 4) - within the finite clause (between the subject and the predicate); the first variety can be called nominal, and the second - sentential agreement.

In the junctive type (! and 3), the agreement controller is the vertex and the target is the dependent; in nexus types (2 and 4), on the contrary, the coordination controller is dependent, and the target is the vertex.

Between types 1-4, in addition to differences, there are some similarities:

1) in all of them, agreement occurs between words connected by a syntactic connection;

2) in all of them it is required that the meanings of the grammatical categories of the same name for the words being agreed upon coincide.

What we call case agreement for nouns and adjectives is different. The case of the noun is determined by the control of the verb, the number of the noun is determined semantically; case and number

Control, in contrast to coordination, cannot simultaneously assign the same meaning of a certain category to several matching ones at once: different actants of a predicative word receive different morphological characteristics recorded in its control model. Control thus expresses differences between actants, which are usually determined by the semantics of the predicate word. As A.E. Kibrik writes, “coordination is a phenomenon of surface syntax associated with the design of word forms when moving to the morphological level. Management is a semantic phenomenon in nature, associated with knowledge of the main word.”

There are 2 main differences between management and coordination:

1. agreement is a grammatical likening of two syntactically related units, but control is not.

2. The control controller is not inside the matching one, which receives the gramme from it (as in matching), but outside it. The assignment of a grammatical feature to a certain matching element does not occur from within, as in agreement, but from the outside - from an external controller.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-16

Management model semantic And syntacticactants lexemes and their methods . The concept was introduced in theory “Meaning ↔ Text”.

Actant (fr. actant valency of the predicate circonstant L. Tenier

VALENCE, the ability of a word to be combined in a text with another linguistic unit, primarily with another word (cf. the term “valence” in chemistry, which serves to describe the ability of chemical elements to form compounds of a particular structure). The term was introduced into linguistics by L. Tenier and A.V. de Groot and was originally applied only to verbs. For example, verb ask assumes that it may indicate the petitioner (the one who asks), the subject of the request (what or what is being asked for) and the addressee of the request (the one who or from whom is asked). Therefore they say that the verb ask trivalent (who, whom, about what); compare: The Duke asked the King for mercy. The plurality of valences of a verb forms it valence structure. Valences, as they say, are “filled in”; word valence fillers are called it actants. In principle, a word can be valence not only on another word, but also on a phrase or even a sentence, cf.: ask for mercy on all relatives or ask,so that he pardons all the relatives of the executed.

Firstly, within the framework of this theory it is believed that obligatory connections, similar to verbal ones, are also inherent in other parts of speech - in particular, adjectives (cf. angry who, to whom, for what: Kolya is back,angry with me/ for that,that I'm late) and noun ( sister whom - Herman). Secondly, due to the fact that the syntactic connections inherent in a word may not be obligatory (this is especially typical for verbs that are capable of syntactically subordinating various kinds of optional circumstances - time, place, reason, etc., cf. came back in the evening / with a friend / due to bad weather etc.), the concept was introduced optional valency. Thirdly, it became clear that the syntactic relations of a word are determined by its semantics. A word that has syntactic valencies always correlates with a situation that has a certain set of obligatory participants; these participants express themselves superficially when using a word, filling in syntactic valences - thereby syntactic valences explicate those semantic relations that connect the name of the situation and the names of its participants. It follows that we can talk not only about syntactic, but also about the semantic valences of the word.

Semantic valences correspond to obligatory variables in the interpretation of a word. In turn, these variables appear in interpretation as “heirs” of the semantic valences of simpler predicates included in the interpretation. Wed. builder="he who builds"; predicate build bivalent (“who builds what”) – a predicate name derived from it builder itself fills its first, subjective valency and preserves the objective, cf. build a metro – subway builders. The procedure of inheritance of semantic valences explains their nature, but the nuances of this procedure have not yet been studied using any representative language material. In particular, the differences in the surface design of the original and inherited semantic valences have not yet been explained, cf. court as a derived predicate noun from a verb judge, however judge someone(*over whom), But trial of whom(*whom).

Unlike syntactic ones, semantic valences turn out to be semantically filled and differ not just by numbers, but by the type of semantic relationship expressed and, thus, seem to be analogous semantic roles (cm. CASE). At the same time, the number of semantic roles varies within a dozen - whereas in the book by Yu.D. Apresyan, which has become a classic Lexical semantics There are 25 types of semantic valences, including subject valences ( the train is moving), counterparty ( defend yourself from a spaniel), recipient ( give to children), addressee ( inform the president), result ( turn into water), period ( vacation for two months), quantity ( more by a meter) etc. Such a list may also contain a more detailed classification of types of valencies - the degree of fragmentation in this case is limited by the following condition: valences that are close in meaning are considered different if they occur as part of the valence structure of one word. These are, for example, the valency of the instrument and means ( write with a quill pen and black ink), counterparty and intermediary ( buy from a company through an agent), etc.

Theoretically, all types of valences could be found in one lexeme - after all, the number of valences in a word is, in principle, unlimited. For example, an adjective has one valency Beautiful, requiring you to indicate only the bearer of the trait (who is beautiful). Meanwhile, the average number of valences of a word is more likely 3–4, cf. above verb ask,and also cut(who, what, with what, on what), angry(who, to whom, for what), etc. A six-place verb is considered “multivalent” send on business(who, whom, from where, where, for what purpose, for how long) and other verbs of causation of movement, cf. take(who, whom/what, on what, from where, where, along what route, why), however, the number of obligatory semantic valences identified with them does not exceed 7. At the same time, superficially with a given word, these seven do not necessarily have to be expressed all at once . Namely, semantic valence may remain unexpressed for the following reasons. Firstly, it can be filled out anaphorically, cf. – Where do the firewood come from??- From the forest,obviously: father,can you hear,chops,and I I'm taking you away , where the valency of the starting point ( from the forest) and object valence ( firewood) verb take are expressed in the previous sentence, and the valence of transport is expressed even earlier ( I see,horse slowly climbs uphill,cart carrying brushwood). Secondly, valence can be filled deictically - this is the valence of the final item in the example just given, understood as “I’m taking you home,” i.e. "to the place where the speaker thinks of himself." Thirdly, valence may not be expressed as unimportant in a given situation, cf.: he took the child to school, where transport is implied, but not expressed precisely as unimportant for the speaker. Finally, valence can be filled once and for all in the interpretation itself, and therefore not be expressed superficially (in such cases they speak of a fixed or incorporated actant - more details cm. ACTANT), cf. verb take(took money from the safe), which implies that the money was in the hands of the one who took it.

With this splitting, the verb receives additional syntactic valency, which corresponds to the semantic valency of one of its actants. Thus, the valency for this actant is, as it were, split into two, one of which is expected for a given verb, and the second is “extra.” For example, the word scratch has an object valence, which is usually filled with names of body parts, cf. scratch your ear/back, which, in turn, are characterized by a valency on the “owner” of the body part - a person or an animal. As a result of splitting scratch receives not only a direct object, but also an indirect one in the dative case, expressing the owner affected by the action ( scratched the cat's ear, Wed also another distribution of syntactic connections for this splitting: scratched the cat behind the ear). Examples of other verbs that allow valence splitting: stroke a child's cheek stroke a child's cheek;compare a new and old car in terms of power compare the power of a new and old car; look into her eyes look into her eyes; check seeds for germination check seed germination.

Thus, the syntactic valence structure is not a simple reflection of the semantic one. In support of this, adjective combinations like ripe peach, in which the predicate word is an adjective - it has semantic valence on the bearer of the attribute, and this valence is filled by the noun ( peach). But syntactically, on the contrary, the adjective is subordinate to the noun. Thus, it turns out that in such cases syntactic relations are in no way connected with deep - semantic ones. To resolve this contradiction, we can introduce the opposition active And passive valencies. Active valence is the valence of the subordinating word. Everything that has been said so far about the properties of valences has concerned specifically active valences, because By default, valences are understood as just the connections of the subordinating word. At the same time, the connection between a subordinate word and a subordinating word can also be called valence - only passive. Then, when describing adjectival combinations, a certain continuity between the syntactic and semantic valence structure is preserved: at the semantic level ripe has an active valency, but in syntactic form it retains it, but as a passive one. (Another way to “align” the syntactic and semantic representation in this zone is to use the syntactic concept introduced by I.M. Boguslavsky instead of the concept of “syntactic valence” scope of action, including any fragment of syntactic representation that fills the semantic valency.)

Management model- a diagram that clearly reflects semantic And syntacticactants lexemes and their methods morphosyntactic design. The concept was introduced in theory “Meaning ↔ Text”.

Actant (fr. actant- “acting”) in linguistics - an active, significant participant in the situation, a speech construction that fills the semantic or syntactic valency of the predicate. The actant, as a rule, necessarily accompanies the predicate; its omission is possible only in limited cases and is subject to special rules. Contrasted circonstant as an optional participant in the situation. The term was coined by a French linguist L. Tenier in the 1930-50s. to clarify the traditional concepts of “addition” and “circumstance”.

Semantic role name with a predicate - in linguistics: part of the semantics of the predicate, reflecting the general properties of the argument of the predicate - a participant in the situation called the predicate. The description in terms of semantic roles reflects the similarities in the control models of different predicate words.

The number and composition of semantic roles allocated when describing a language can vary significantly depending on the tasks of the description and the degree of detail. However, there are a number of roles that linguists usually include in a set that is universal for the languages of the world:

§ agent- animated initiator and controller of action;

§ patient- a participant undergoing significant changes;

§ beneficiary- a participant whose interests are affected in the process of implementing the situation (receives benefit or harm);

§ experiencer- bearer of feelings and perceptions;

§ stimulus- source of perceptions;

§ tool carrying out an action;

§ destination- message recipient (can be combined with a beneficiary);

§ source- starting point of movement;

§ target- the final point of movement.

Valence of a word (semantic, lexical, syntactic)

Semantic-grammatical classifications of vocabulary (categorical classes of words, subject and characteristic words, isosemic and non-isosemic words, indicators of semantic relations)

Question about the minimum syntactic unit

TYPES OF VALENCE

1. According to the number of valence elements required for the verb:

SIMPLE VALENCE - the existence of a single type of valence bond between the dominant and dependent elements, which is expressed in the implementation of one elementary valency; simple valence is always unary;

COMPLEX VALENCE - the possibility of having a greater number of valence bonds between the dominant element and other elements dependent on it, which is expressed in the implementation of more than one elementary valency, which

according to the type of logical relationships that develop between them, they can be:

Compatible when they are implemented simultaneously in a given syntagmatic chain - according to the principle of conjunction;

Incompatible, when only one of them can be realized in a given syntagmatic chain - according to the principle of disjunction;

According to the type of syntactic positions being filled, they can be:

Single (when filling incompatible valence positions);

Multi-place (when filling joint valence positions);

2. In relation to the linguistic characteristics of communication:

SEMANTIC VALENCE - the ability of a given word to be syntactically associated with any word whose meaning includes a certain semantic feature;

LEXICAL VALENCE - the ability of a given word to be syntactically associated with words from a limited list, and it does not matter whether they have common semantic features or not;

MORPHOLOGICAL VALENCE - the ability of a lexeme to be combined with words of a certain class or with a separate word in a certain grammatical form;

SYNTACTIC VALENCE - the totality and properties of potentially possible syntactic connections in a word, the set and conditions for the implementation of syntactic connections;

3. According to the importance of availability:

OBLIGATORY VALENCE - the possibility of compatibility, predetermined by the need for a word to have certain actants, motivated by its semantics and always realized in speech;

OPTIONAL VALENCE - the possibility of compatibility, motivated by the general combinative abilities of the word and realized only in some cases.

PARTS OF SPEECH

1. What does “identifying parts of speech according to semantic criteria” mean? What general grammatical meanings do the words below (fill in the missing letters) have?

Goose..penetrate, rip..up, brocade..wy, burn..ra, migrate..wake, knife..fork, pear..wy.

2. Is it possible to say that if a word denotes an object, then it necessarily has the general grammatical meaning of objectivity? Or vice versa: if it has a general grammatical meaning of objectivity, then does it designate an object? Justify your point of view using the following words:

key, horn player, regrouping, greenery, brilliant green, recovery, perpendicularity.

3. Word-formation pairs are given:

side curb, curtain hanging, evening party, cheap cheapness, inactive inactivity, long-legged centipede, smoking smoker.

4. Indicate which of these words are formed from verbs or adjectives and have the meaning of an abstract action or attribute:

paraphrase, impartiality, redeemer, raincoat, co-report, cigarette butt, jump.

5. Distribute nouns into groups: a) denotes an object, b) does not denote an object, but has a general grammatical meaning of objectivity:

driver, mineralization, speed, marking, round, melting, attribution.

6. Paraphrase the given sentences using the words in brackets. How does the meaning of the highlighted words change?

1) What the apple turned out to bebitter , I didn't like it (bitterness , taste bitter ).

2) We admired that the flowers werevariegated against the backdrop of bright green grass (dazzle , variegation ).

7. What should be understood by the morphological criterion for identifying parts of speech? Do the words in the following groups have the same or different morphological categories?

1) Tree wooden;

2) newcomer come;

3) leave I'll leave leaving;

4) five five fifth;

5) I my.

8. Indicate what are the features of the change in the following words?

1) Dining room, mammals, (old man) beggar;

2) I, you, he, we, you, they;

3) two, three, four.

9. What is meant by “syntactic features of parts of speech”? Describe the nature of the syntactic connections of different parts of speech, using material for reference.

Reference material: get up from the table, cold wind, ten books, talk about you, look tenderly, too serious, very close, with three friends.

10. Following the diagram of syntactic functions of parts of speech, come up with your own example for each case.

	noun name	name attached
subject
definition
addition
predicate
circumstance

11. Based on what criteria are the so-called words of the state category (predicative adverbs) separated into a separate part of speech? Compare offers: Heboring read.  To himboring read. What makes the highlighted words different from each other?

12. Fill out the table for the following types of words (forms):

type of words	semantic features, generalized meaning	morphological characteristics			syntactic features
type of words	semantic features, generalized meaning	basic grammatical categories and their nature	nature of inflection	main function in a sentence		syntactic connection with other words
table, window, house, boy, judge, ...
new, iron, sea, ...
running, running, running...
two, three,...
I, you, who...

13. Based on what criteria do we classify words (forms):

a) to nouns: black, dining room(meaning ‘room for eating’), teasing;

b) to adjectives: whiter, whiter, whiter;

c) to verbs: leaving, leaving, leaving;

d) to numerals: one, thousand, fortieth;

e) to pronouns: most.

14. Based on the following examples, explain how the transition from one part of speech to another occurs, what semantic, morphological, syntactic features of the original words change:

1) reluctantly smile,

2)youblack to your face;

3) outstanding pianist;

4) around garden.

1.2.Syntactic classifications of vocabulary.

1.2.1. Categorical classes of words (parts of speech), isosemic / non-isosemic words.

1 5 . Familiarize yourself with the principle of classification of vocabulary based on isosemicity/non-isosemicity (G.A. Zolotova). (Table 1)

Basic principles of classification of vocabulary by isosemic/non-isosemic

Table 1.

Part of speech	Phenomenon of reality	Isosemicity / non-isosemicity
Noun	Abstract	cat, shape, quality, million	(cf.: running, ringing, beauty, night, flu)
	Action/ State	build, wash, lie down, be sick	(cf.: curl - about hair; stutter)
Adjective	Subject	new, blue, high;	(cf.: silk, sewing, forestry, fluent - about reading)
	Actions State	quickly, fluently, loud; cold, stuffy	delicious; lying down)
Numeral	Quantity	one, one hundred, three	(cf.: heels, hundred)

1 6 . In the list below, identify isosemic and non-isosemic words.

City, Spain, remind (= be similar), guitar, hear, motley, population, stand out, plunge, wide gates, huge bastion, stately and slow Arabs, graceful French women, French officers, hundreds of soldiers, European schoolgirls with pigtails, boulevards of Paris , biblical type of face, white uniform, funny architecture of buildings; a noisy, Parisian-looking cafe; carved balconies alternate with towers of the official European style; colored mosaic walls; shouting, sitting on a bench; newsstand; laugh loudly; enter the alley; the smell of food; three-story building.

1 7 . Among the sentences given below, find isosemic structures (IzK). In the remaining sentences, highlight non-isosemic words. Try to transform these sentences into IzK.

1. At the conference I was asked a question: have we analyzed the effectiveness of our cooperation with these companies? 2. I closed my eyes again, but five minutes later I decided that I had gotten enough sleep. 3. The conversation was very calm. 4. The squirrel is a big fan of nuts. 5. The blue of the sky was amazing. 6. I had no doubts. 7. Epyornis eggs have very thick shells.

1 8 . a) Among the sentences given below, highlight IzK and non-IzK. Find non-isosemic words that transform the construction into the non-isosemic category. b) Transform the nonIKs you have selected into IZKs. Where does this fail?

1. We went through a small gate. 2. Of all the Legion sergeants, this was the most cruel. 3. Prayer, repeated three times a day, is one of the main rituals in Judaism. 4. This procedure is quite complicated. 5. Today, efforts should be directed not only to research work. 6. With warmth, life returned to the chick. 7. Sergei Mikhailovich began working on the first volume in 1849. 8. The idea of writing this essay arose from Solovyov shortly after defending his doctoral dissertation.

1.2.3.Words are indicators of semantic relations (SSR).

As a transition zone between significant and auxiliary lexical units, building words unite various phenomena that demonstrate the operation of the general mechanism of language. In the functional communicative syntax, a typology of such construction words is outlined for as indicators of semantic relations(PSO) with three groups of units: relators, explicators and classifiers [Vsevolodova 2000: 40-41].

These groups are identified according to several criteria: by those parts of speech that act as building words, by the type of structures formed and by the degree of optionality within these structures, as well as by the type of explicit relations.

1. Relators– multi-place predicates naming relations between situations or participants in a situation: Irresponsibility led to loss of life; Structure determines the properties of a substance; The presence of a paradigm indicates the changeability of this part of speech; We own the means of production.

Relators differ from other PSOs in that they denote an independent proposition, albeit of a logical nature, and therefore form a free predicate without combinations with other lexical units.

2. Explicators: The question is of extreme interest; This process is characterized by a special intensity; This is a proposal with a complex structure.

Explicators combine the most diverse formally and semantically lexemes (verbs, adjectives, nouns), the main function of which is to explicate the relationship between the subject and its attribute. The most common structures with explicators are descriptive predicates.

3. Classifiers: in the amount of five, the process of oxidation, the property of preserving; Man is a fragile creature.

It is this last group that we will focus our attention on.

Classifiers (term by E.M. Wolf [Wolf 1982-1: 2]) are used to explicate the relationship of reality to a particular class. These are building words, mainly names, that classify at the semantic level this or that named phenomenon. Deprived of a specific denotation, they perform structural functions in syntactic constructions, therefore they are often optional or imply the possibility of transformation without loss of denotatively significant content.

So, a statement using PSO Compressive word formation serves the purpose of reducing nominative units already existing in the language(E.A. Zemskaya) can be transformed as follows: With the help of compressive word formation, nominative units already existing in the language are shortened.

However, there are such constructions with classifiers that cannot be transformed. They fill a certain “lacuna” that exists in the language. For example, the statement It is necessary to punish those who commit acts of vandalism against public property in courtyards cannot be transformed without the classifier act and the explicator commit, since the verb *vandal does not occur. On the contrary, constructions like A figure that is too small in a large space causes a feeling of inconvenience and discomfort(cf. causes inconvenience, discomfort); The voting procedure has begun (Wed. voting has begun).

Thus, the semantic weight and degree of optionality of the words classifiers combined into a group vary quite a lot, and additional criteria for distinguishing classifiers, on the one hand, and relators and explicators, on the other, are required. The boundaries of the functional group of classifiers seem quite vague at the moment.

1 9 . In the sentences below, find PSO - multi-place predicate-relators. In what cases and how can these relationships be expressed by other means?

1. Smoking can cause lung cancer. 2. Chemistry is a natural science. 3. Venus and Mars are part of the solar system.

4. The symposium will last three days. 5. His stay in Moscow occurred on holidays. 6. The consequence of water pollution was the disappearance of fish.

7. The post office is around the corner. 8. The object of my research is the influenza virus. 9. Your success will depend on your preparedness. 10. A good blush is a sign of health.

20 . Below are sentences that include explicator words and classifiers. Select them and transform the sentences so that there is no PSO.

Sample: Masha - tall; - Masha is tall.

1. We spent the whole day packing things. 2. The number of meteoroids penetrating into the earth’s atmosphere per day is tens of thousands. 3. The Earth rotates around the Sun and around its axis. 4. In the II century. BC the process of ruin and dispossession of small owners became a mass phenomenon. 5. The work must be submitted within a week. 6. The child was in a state of nervous shock. 7. With the launch of the factory, the pace of construction work in the city will accelerate. 8. More than a million rose bushes were planted throughout the city. 9. Masha has a calm character.

1.2.4.Semantic categories of nouns.

(The classification takes into account the works of S.D. Katsnelson and N.D. Arutyunova)

21 . In the list below, highlight personal, subject, event and characteristic nouns.

Gymnasium, master of thoughts, tutoring, lesson, history, testimony, aerial photography, hundreds of times faster; entering the required characteristics into a computer, a lot of calculations and research, a prototype, the method of successive approximations; do the work; strength, laboratory, methods of computer-aided design of materials; development program; scheme for obtaining new material; production of artificial turf; improvement of calculation methods; theory of functional properties of materials; searching for ways to create optimal technologies; specialist; time frame for the creation of materials needed by industry.

2 2 . In the sentences below, find instances of the use of nouns in a secondary semantic function. Explain their use: explicate the missing possible meaning.

1. Our trip was canceled due to my brother’s illness. 2. The excursion did not take place due to the bus. 3. The guys were happy with the toys and books. 4. Oars caused blisters on my hands. 5. The children sang discordantly to the piano. 6. Yesterday I had no time for books: workers came to change the batteries. 7. The tickets ruined my mood. 8. We sat by candlelight all evening. 9. There was an envelope near the candle. 10. A car pulled out from behind the bus.

1.2.5. Semantic categories of verbs.

(classification based on the works of G.A. Zolotova)

2 3 . In the sentences below, identify the verbs: 1. half-nominal and 2. full-nominal. Among the incomplete denominators, highlight: 1) copulas, 2) modifiers (phasic and modal), 3) explicators (compensators); Among the full nominative ones, find relator verbs, including verbs of location, logical, spatial, temporal and other relations, actional, causative, interpersonal relations, states (statal), characterization.

1. Then a man came up to us. 2. The city reminded me of Spain. 3. The essence of the method is layer-by-layer removal of the epidermis. 4. It was necessary to find out to what extent similar phenomena occurred on the planet in prehistoric times. 5. The development of the schemes took place with the participation of experimenters. b. In the process of language development, its vocabulary is updated. 7. Weddle seals live in coastal waters of the Arctic. 8. The Austrian company Infrafon began producing phones with an infrared beam instead of a cord. 9. Glass transmits light rays. 10. A special device smoothes the skin.

What categories of verbs did you not find here?

1.2.6. Semantic categories of adjectives.

(Classification based on the work of M.Yu. Sidorova)

2 2 . Take a look at Table 2, which presents the general principles of systematizing adjectives according to their semantics. After reading the table, complete the tasks.

2 5 . In the following phrases, determine the category of the adjective: essential, informative, emotional, evaluative. Pay attention to the character of the noun being defined.

1) Gold coins; Golden hair; Golden character. 2) Women's dress; Her work dress; 3) The only mistake; Fatal mistake; Funny mistake; 4) Russian folk melody; Sad melody; Wonderful melody; Popular melody. 5) Syntactic category; Library card; Reading room; Wonderful hall; Huge hall .

2 6 . In these texts, identify: 1) isosemic and non-isosemic words; 2) personal, objective, event and attribute nouns; 3) relators, explicators and classifiers; 4) Semantic categories of verbs (write down at the end of the exercise); 5) Semantic categories of adjectives and role composition of combinations (write down at the end of the exercise).

a) Billions of tons of barren sand blown by the wind in deserts can be used to construct buildings. The technology for the production of sand-based concrete bricks, developed by the Czechs, is successfully used in Libya.

b) A protective coating for a football field is being tested at the stadium, which allows extending the life of the grass and thereby increasing the duration of the football season.

Verbs:

use -

pour over -

develop -

apply -

undergo (operation) -

let -

extend (term) -

increase -

Adjectives:

barren (sand) -

concrete (brick) -