I. structural-semantic types of words

Already from the proposed description of the word it is clear that the structural-semantic types of words are heterogeneous and that this heterogeneity of the structure of words depends most of all on the nature of the combination and interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings. Semantic types of words are not placed in the same plane. Established in Russian grammar since the 18th century. dividing words into significant and official interesting as a symptom of the consciousness of the structural heterogeneity of different types of words.

Seven distinguishing features of function words were noted: 1) the inability to separate nominative use; 2) the inability to independently spread the syntagma, or phrases (for example, union and, relative word which, prepositions on, at etc. are unable by themselves, independently of other words, to construct or distribute a phrase or syntagma); 3) the impossibility of a pause after these words in the composition of speech (without a special expressive justification); 4) morphological indivisibility or semantic indecomposability of most of them (cf., for example, at, at, after all, here etc., on the one hand, and because to, then what, though etc. - with another); 5) inability to wear phrasal stresses (except in cases of opposition by contrast); 6) the absence of independent stress on most of the primitive words of this type; 7) the originality of grammatical meanings, which dissolve the lexical content of service words. This is the division of words into significant and auxiliary under different names- lexical and formal words (Potebnya), full and partial (Fortunatov) - was adopted in all works on Russian grammar. Along with these two general categories of words in the Russian language, researchers have long outlined a third category - interjections.

The traditional solution question about the main semantic-grammatical classes of words are different doctrines of parts of speech. But these teachings - for all their diversity - do not take into account the general structural differences between the main types of words. All parts of speech are placed in the same plane. More about this V.A. Bogoroditsky wrote: "It is necessary to pay attention to the subordination of some parts of speech to others, which is ignored in school grammars, and all parts of speech are put on the same line."

The identification of parts of speech should be preceded by the definition of the main structural-semantic types of words.

Classification of words should be constructive. It cannot ignore any side of the structure of the word. But, of course, lexical and grammatical criteria (including phonological ones) must play a decisive role. In the grammatical structure of words, morphological features are combined with syntactic ones into an organic unity. Morphological forms are settled syntactic forms. There is nothing in morphology that is not or was not previously in syntax and vocabulary. The history of morphological elements and categories is the history of the displacement of syntactic boundaries, the history of the transformation of syntactic breeds into morphological ones. This offset is continuous. Morphological categories are inextricably linked with syntactic ones. In morphological categories there are constant changes in relationships, and the impulses, pushes for these transformations come from syntax. Syntax is the organizational center of grammar. Grammar, immanent to a living language, is always constructive and does not tolerate mechanical divisions and dissections, since the grammatical forms and meanings of words are in close interaction with lexical meanings.

An analysis of the semantic structure of a word leads to the identification of four main grammatical-semantic categories of words.

1. First of all, a category stands out words-names, by the traditional definition. All these words have a nominative function. They reflect and embody in their structure objects, processes, qualities, signs, numerical connections and relationships, circumstantial and qualitative-consequential definitions and relationships of things, signs and processes of reality and are applied to them, pointing to them, designate them. Adjoining words-names are words that are equivalents, and sometimes substitutes for names. Such words are called pronouns. All these categories of words form the main lexical and grammatical fund of speech. Words of this type form the basis of syntactic units and unities (phrases and sentences) and phraseological series. They serve as the main members of the sentence. They can - each separately - make up a whole statement. The words belonging to most of these categories are grammatical and combined complexes, or systems, of forms. Different forms or modifications of the same word are associated with different functions of the word in the structure of speech or utterance.

Therefore, when applied to these classes of words, the term "parts of speech" is especially appropriate. They form the subject-semantic, lexical and grammatical foundation of speech. These are "lexical words", according to Potebnya's terminology, and "full words", according to Fortunatov's qualification.

2. Parts of speech are opposed by particles of speech, connective, function words. This structural-semantic type of words is devoid of a nominative function. He is not characterized by "subject relatedness". These words relate to the world of reality only through and through the medium of words-names. They belong to the sphere of linguistic semantics, which reflects the most general, abstract categories of existential relations - causal, temporal, spatial, target, etc. They are closely connected with the technique of language, complicating and developing it. Linking words are not "material", but formal. in them the "real" content and grammatical functions coincide. Their lexical meanings are identical with grammatical ones. These words lie on the verge of vocabulary and grammar, and at the same time on the verge of words and morphemes. That is why Potebnya called them "formal words" and Fortunatov - "partial".

3. The third type of words differs markedly from the two previous structural types. This is modal words. They are also devoid of a nominative function, like linking words. However, many of them do not belong to the same extent as connective, functional words, to the field of formal linguistic means. They are more "lexical" than link words. They do not express the connections and relationships between the members of the sentence. Modal words seem to be wedged or included in the sentence or lean against it. They express the modality of the message about reality or are the subject-stylistic key of speech. The sphere of assessments and points of view of the subject on reality and on the methods of its verbal expression finds its expression in them. Modal words mark the inclination of speech towards reality, due to the point of view of the subject, and in this sense they are somewhat close to the formal meaning of verb moods. Modal words, as it were, introduced into a sentence or attached to it, turn out to be outside both parts of speech and particles of speech, although in appearance they can resemble both of them.

4. The fourth category of words leads to the sphere of purely subjective - emotional-volitional expressions. To this fourth structural type words belong interjections, if we give this term a slightly wider meaning. The intonational, melodic peculiarities of their form, their lack of cognitive value, their syntactic disorganization, their inability to form combinations with other words, their morphological indivisibility, their affective coloring, their direct connection with facial expressions and expressive gesture sharply separate them from other words. They express emotions, moods and volitional expressions of the subject, but do not designate or name them. They are closer to expressive gestures than to words-names. Whether interjections form sentences is a matter of debate. However, it is difficult to deny the meaning and designation of "sentence equivalents" behind interjectional expressions.

So, there are four main structural and semantic categories of words in the modern Russian language: 1) words-names, or parts of speech, 2) connective words, or particles of speech, 3) modal words and particles, and 4) interjections.

Apparently in different styles book and colloquial speech, as well as in different styles and genres of fiction, the frequency of using different types of words is different. But, unfortunately, this question is still only in the preparatory stage of the examination of the material.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Semantic structure of the meaning of the word

Lexical semantics is a branch of semantics that studies the meaning of a word. More precisely, lexical semantics studies the meaning of words as units of a language subsystem (also called the vocabulary of a language, or simply its dictionary, or lexicon or lexicon) and as units of speech. Thus, the object of study in lexical semantics is the word considered from the side of its signified.

The concept of "meaning" has different aspects and is defined in different ways, in relation to certain areas of human activity. The general everyday understanding of "meaning" is defined, for example, as follows: "meaning is what a given object is for people who are in the process of everyday, aesthetic, scientific, industrial, socio-political and other activities."

By meaning, one can understand that the main category of semantics is its central concept. To determine the meaning of certain units of a sign (semiotic) system, including language, which represents “the most complete and perfect of communication systems”, this means to establish regular correspondences between certain “segments” of text and meaning that are correlative for a given unit, to formulate rules and reveal the patterns of transition from the text to its meaning and from the meaning to the text expressing it.

The lexical meaning of a word, that is, socially assigned to it as a certain complex of its sounds individual content, is, according to a number of linguists, a kind of semantic whole, which, however, consists of interrelated and interdependent parts, or components.

The lexical meaning of a word is the content of a word that reflects in the mind and fixes in it the idea of ​​an object, property, process, phenomenon and product of human mental activity, it is associated with reduction, its connections with other meanings of language units in a phrase and sentence, and paradigmatically - its position within the synonymic row. Syntagmatic factors that are essential in clarifying the meaning of a word are secondary in relation to the actual semantic aspect.

Lexical meaning is “a well-known reflection of an object, phenomenon or relationship in the mind, which is included in the structure of the word as its so-called inner side, in relation to which the sound of the word acts as a material shell ...”.

Can be considered the following types lexical meaning of the word:

Meaning as a specific linguistic form of a generalized reflection of extralinguistic reality;

Meaning as a component of a lexical unit, i.e. a structural element of the lexical-semantic system of the language;

Meaning as an expression of the attitude of speakers to the words (signs) used and the impact of words (signs) on people;

Meaning as an actual, specific designation, naming of an object, phenomenon (situation).

The existence of lexico-semantic variants of the same word suggests that they are not isolated, but interconnected entities, in a certain way correlating with each other and forming a kind of unity. The systemic interconnection of different LSVs of the same word within its identity forms the basis of its semantic (or semantic) structure, which can be defined as an ordered (discovering the systemic interconnection of its elements) set of LSVs of the same word. The concept of the semantic structure of a word is interpreted very ambiguously in the linguistic literature, however, it seems possible to single out two main directions that differ in how the elementary constitutive component of the semantic structure of the word is determined. The first group includes those understandings of the semantic structure, where the main unit is the LSV, that is, the unit correlated with the individual meaning of a polysemantic word. The second direction is closely connected with the method of component analysis of meaning, which sets as its task the division of the content side of a linguistic unit into its constituent components and the presentation of meaning in the form of sets of elementary meanings or semantic features. These elementary or, more precisely, minimal (at a certain level of analysis) semantic components, distinguished in the content side of a lexeme or its separate LSV, are called sem. Composing the meaning of a word or a separate LSW of a word, semes act not as elements listed in an arbitrary order, but as a hierarchically ordered structure, and thus, one can speak of a semantic structure, the structural unit of which will be a seme. At the same time, the semantic (semantic) structure, presented at the seme level, can be considered both in relation to the word as a set of LSWs, and in relation to a separate LSW and, accordingly, in relation to an unambiguous word.

Given the difference in the approach to determining the semantic structure of linguistic units, it seems that a terminological distinction should also be made, calling the semantic structure of the word the ordered set of its LSW and the semantic structure of the word - the representation of the content side at the level of the minimum components of the meaning. Accordingly, only polysemantic words have a semantic (semantic) structure, and both polysemantic words and single-valued lexemes and individual LSVs of polysemantic words have a semantic structure.

The most important aspect of describing the semantic structure of a word is the establishment of correlative relationships between its LSW. Two approaches are possible here: synchronous and diachronic. With the synchronous approach, meaningful-logical relations are established between the meanings of LSV without taking into account obsolete and obsolete LSV, which, thus, somewhat distorts the relationship of semantic derivativeness between individual LSV (epidigmatic relations, in the terminology of D.N. Shmelev, but in a certain sense more adequately than with the diachronic approach, reflects the real ratio of values ​​in the perception of carriers

The semantic structure of the word and the structure of the LZS differ. The first includes a set of individual variants of LZS, among which the main meanings and derivatives are distinguished - portable and specialized. Each lexico-semantic variant is a hierarchically organized set of semes - a structure in which an integrating generic meaning (archiseme), a differentiating specific (differential seme), as well as potential semes reflecting side properties of an object that actually exist or are attributed to it by the collective are distinguished. These semes are important for the formation of figurative meanings of words.

a) chronotopoi. Formulas of time indications, denoting the extent of an event or phenomenon from a certain moment in the past to the time of the chronicler's work, are found in the text of the PVL throughout the narrative. They exist in different verbal forms. The most commonly used are the following: “to this day”, “to this day”, “to this day”, “to this day”, “to this day”, “until now”. These may be indications of the places of settlement of the Slavic tribes; to the places of residence and cult burials of chronicle persons; to the locations of churches; princely parking lots, chambers; places for hunting. Some chronotopoi contain important information on the topography of cities. The author's chronotopic remarks help to find out the approximate time and place of the chronicler's work (indicating Vseslav's pit, the time and place of the burial of Anthony, Jan and Evpraksia). Many remarks, in addition to chronotopic, perform the function of updating the past.

b) information remarks. The indicated type of remarks performs the function of messages about the origin of tribes, tribal customs, about the establishment of tribute to the Khazars, Varangians, Radimichi and the conquest of some Polish cities that are still under Russia; about the consequences of wars; about "shortcomings" in appearance and moral inferiority.

Some chronoconstructs are used by the chronicler to enhance some quality (usually the cowardice of enemies). They combine informative and artistic function(hyperbolization with an element of humor: but the use of their probhgosha to this day).

c) connecting remarks. They are designed, as a rule, for a “smart reader” (an expression by A.S. Demin) and serve as a reminder of the previously described events (“as if rekohom”), return to main topic narrations (“we will return to the former”), prepare the reader for the perception of information (“because it’s not enough”), refer to subsequent events (“as we say later”). At the same time, they connect different fragments of the text, giving it the appearance of a whole work. As M.Kh. Aleshkovsky, "these associative arches, thrown from one text to another, from maxim to maxim, the so-called cross-references, references to contemporary reality, hold the entire grandiose and narrative building"8. In addition, these external and obvious manifestations clearly demonstrate the ability of the chronicler to cover the totality of events. A.A. Shaikin, who does not specifically analyze the system of reservations and references in the annals, noted that “only by them alone one could confidently conclude that the chronicler in his thinking is not at all isolated by a fragment, that he simultaneously sees, captures, matches events of different years and realizes it is one’s own vision and conjugation in the text of the chronicle”9.

The author's speech transformations of phraseological units are revealed within the following main structural and semantic changes: inversion, replacement, insertion, contamination, ellipsis, allusion, etc. Despite such a variety of types of transformations, the number of uses of phraseological units without changes in fiction exceeds the number of transformed units.

In addition to the basic methods of changing phraseological units related to the lexical side of a stable unit, changes in the grammatical plan are also observed in works of art.

lexical semantics word note

3. The history of the development of the concept of "image"

Imagine, imagination, image. Imagine, imagination are words inherited by the Russian literary language from the Old Church Slavonic language. The morphological composition of the word imagine shows that its original meaning was to give an image to something, to draw, depict, embody in the image of something, to realize.

Thus, the history of changes in the meanings of the verb imagine is closely connected with the semantic fate of the word image. In the language of ancient Russian writing, the word image expressed a whole range of meanings - concrete and abstract:

1) appearance, appearance, external outlines, form

2) image, statue, portrait, icon, imprint

3) face, physiognomy;

4) rank, rank, condition inherent in a particular social position, features of the species and way of life;

5) sample, prim;

6) a symbol, sign or sign;

7) way, means,

An image is a holistic, but incomplete representation of a certain object or class of objects, is an ideal product of mental activity, which is concretized in one form or another of mental reflection: sensation, perception.

This is a fairly accurate definition of the word. A product of the psyche, which tends to bring the representation of an object into the plane of a perfect, finished look. All the phenomena hidden behind the words of the language are not fully covered by the words, the images try to get closer to the known properties of the phenomena that a person can perceive. And the sciences are trying to expand the experience of the integrity of the phenomenon. We have to admit that, expanding the “boundaries of knowledge”, there are no less questions than answers. Wherein vocabulary much more limited than the variety of surrounding forms and phenomena, therefore, in the language there is a huge repetition of some words for different fields of activity.

And at the same time, even all outgoing waves language communication, can be attributed to the phenomenon - "a person talks about himself." In the sense that what is being said comes from personal perception, in connection with which, very often it is necessary to find out: - What did you mean when you said health? Health, what is it for you? And in this social phenomenon of limited language, individuals are trying to express the image they have adopted behind the word, the conviction, the evolution of their own consciousness. Here lies a more effective (real) influence of an example of an individual's behavior than the voiced "correct" words and advice. This is what manifests itself in “Physical Culture” as imitation and a special kind of active straight-knowledge (not by reason), and when quick reactions of the whole organism to a changing environment are required (outdoor games, relay races, high-speed qualities of exercises ...).

In addition to this, the very form of presentation of our figurative representations is complicated by their translation through words. In addition to the meaning of the word itself, which may not be unambiguous, the word order of the composed sentences and the meaning of the general array that the author intended to convey to readers are also important. Or completely different forms of reproduction with their help are possible.

The reader himself, at the same time, must be grown up in the linguistic and written culture of the people whose texts he reads, have an interest in the chosen topic and the mind of active perception, not on faith but for information.

The information itself is built in letter designations with great difficulty is able to convey the emotions and moods of the author, embedded in the text (which is expressed in the difficulties of translations works of art into different languages).

These simple experiments with the form of presentation and the meaning of transmission show additional difficulties in understanding the fruits of our figurative thinking expressed through texts. In contrast to the international "body language", one's own behavior and example (actions and appearance), which instantly transmits information of your momentary state without logical comprehension of it, but in any society perceived by straight-knowledge. This is confirmed by numerous popular science videos of travelers meeting with the cultures of primitive existence. Where is the difference in knowledge about the world around, does not interfere with the quick finding of common concepts of the beginning of the dialogue. Help and respect meets help and respect, aggression and contempt meets aggression and contempt.

4. Modern dictionary definition

1) in psychology - a subjective picture of the world, including the subject himself, other people, the spatial environment and the temporal sequence of events.

The term comes from the Latin word for imitation, and most uses of it in psychology, old and new, revolve around this concept. Consequently, the most common synonyms for it are the concepts of similarity, copy, reproduction, duplicate. There are several important variations of this concept:

1. Optical image - the most specific use, which refers to the reflection of an object by a mirror, lens or other optical device.

2. Broader meaning - retinal image - (approximate) image of an object on the retina, which occurs point by point when light is refracted optical system eyes.

3. In structuralism - one of the three subclasses of consciousness; the other two are sensations and feelings. The main emphasis in this model of use was on the fact that the image should be considered as a mental representation of the previous sensory experience, as its copy. This copy was thought to be less vivid than the sensory experience, still represented in consciousness as a memory of that experience.

4. The picture in my head. This commonsense concept actually captures the essence of the term quite well in its most modern usage, but some caveats should be made,

a) "Picture" is not in the literal sense - there is no device, such as a slide projector / screen, rather it should be said: "like a picture." That is, imagination is a cognitive process that acts as if a person has a mental picture that is an analogue of a scene from the real world,

b) The image is not necessarily seen as a reproduction of an earlier event, but rather as a construction, a synthesis. In this sense, the image is no longer seen as a copy, for example, one can imagine a unicorn riding a motorcycle, which is unlikely to be a copy of any previously seen stimulus,

c) This picture in the head seems to be able to mentally "move" in such a way that one can imagine, for example, a unicorn riding a motorcycle towards you, away from you, in a circle.

d) The picture is not necessarily limited to a visual representation, although, undoubtedly, the term is most often used in this sense. Some people claim that they even have taste and smell images. Because of such extended interpretations, definitions are often added to the term to indicate the form of the image under discussion.

e) this pattern of usage impinges on the meaning of the etymologically related term imagination.

The main patterns of use were given above, but there are some others:

5. A general attitude towards some institution, such as "an image of some country)".

6. Elements of dreams.

5. Direct and specific meaning

The world depicted in the work in all its integrity can be considered as a single image. An image is an element of a work that belongs both to its form and to its content. The image is inextricably linked with the idea of ​​the work or with the author's position in the work. It is both a concrete, sensuous representation and the embodiment of an idea.

An image is always concrete, not abstract, unlike an idea, but it does not have to evoke a definite, clear visual representation of the object depicted.

6. Assignment of concepts to a given subject area

The word - image, image - image, feeling - image, and also involuntarily - through the action of unconscious mechanisms are updated by associations. The image of representation is projected in the sphere of consciousness. The projection of representations into real space is a hallucination. Personal representations are objectified, become available to others through verbal description, graphic image and associated behavior. Motor representations pre-adjust a person to an action and, as a standard, correct it. By means of a language that introduces socially developed methods of logical operation of concepts into the representation, the representation is translated into an abstract concept.

When comparing the qualitative characteristics of the image of perception and images of representation, the obscurity, indistinctness, incompleteness, fragmentation, instability and paleness of the latter in comparison with the image of perception are striking. These features are indeed inherent in representations, but they are not essential. The essence of representations is that they are generalized images of reality that preserve the most characteristic features of the world that are important for an individual or personality. At the same time, the degree of generalization of a certain representation can be different, in connection with which the representations are single and general. Representations are the initial data for operating in the mind with casts of reality.

Representations are the result of sensory knowledge of the world, the experience, the property of each individual. At the same time, the image of representation is the initial form of development and deployment mental life personality. Among the regularities, first of all, the generalization of the image, which is characteristic even for individual representations, is important; for general representations, it is the main feature.

The sensory-objective nature of representations makes it possible to classify them according to modality - as visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, etc. Types of representations are distinguished. Corresponding to the types of perception: representations of time, space, movement, etc. general.

Representation transformations play an important role in solving mental problems, especially those that require a new "vision" of the situation.

List of used literature

1. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflict Dictionary, 2009

2. IMAGE - a subjective picture of the world or its fragments, including the subject himself, other people, space ...

3. Big psychological dictionary. Comp. Meshcheryakov B., Zinchenko V. Olma-press. 2004.

4. V. Zelensky. Dictionary of analytical psychology.

5. Glossary of political psychology. -M RUDN University, 2003

6. Glossary of psychological terms. Under. ed. N. Gubina.

7. Diana Halpern. Psychology of critical thinking, 2000 / Terms in the book.

8. Dudiev V.P. Psychomotor: dictionary-reference book, 2008

9. Dushkov B.A., Korolev A.V., Smirnov B.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary: Psychology of work, management, engineering psychology and ergonomics, 2005

10. Zhmurov V.A. The Great Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, 2nd ed., 2012

11. Applied aspects of modern psychology: terms, laws, concepts, methods / Reference edition, author-compiler N.I. Konyukhov, 1992

12. S.Yu. Golovin. Dictionary of practical psychologist.

13. Oxford Dictionary of Psychology / Ed. A. Rebera, 2002

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

Meaning of the word. The structure of the lexical meaning of the word. Definition of value. Scope and content of meaning. The structure of the lexical meaning of the word. Denotative and significative, connotative and pragmatic aspects of meaning.

abstract, added 08/25/2006


Acquaintance with the scientific literature devoted to the semantics of lexical units in Russian linguistics. Highlighting the originality of the components of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word. Semantic analysis of a polysemantic word on the material of the word fall.

term paper, added 09/18/2010


The problem of the ambiguity of a word, along with the problem of the structure of its separate meaning, as the central problem of semasiology. Examples of lexico-grammatical polysemy in Russian. Correlation of lexical and grammatical semes with polysemy of a word.

article, added 07/23/2013


Consideration of the concept and properties of the word. The study of phonetic, semantic, syntactic, reproducible, internal linear, material, informative and other characteristics of the word in the Russian language. The role of speech in the life of modern man.

presentation, added 10/01/2014


Expression of the plan of the content of words in different art formats and its features in computer games. The history of the interaction and coexistence of different plans for the content of the word "elf" in culture. The specificity of the lexical meaning of a word in a computer game.

term paper, added 10/19/2014


Definition of direct and figurative meanings of words in Russian. Scientific terms, proper names, recently emerged words, rarely used and words with a narrow subject meaning. Basic and derived lexical meanings of polysemantic words.

presentation, added 04/05/2012


How the spiritual life of the people is reflected in the language through the word "thank you". All the meanings of the word "thank you", its composition, origin and use in speech. The use of the word in works of fiction, its quantitative and qualitative analysis.

presentation, added 11/20/2013


Variants of the definition of the word "happiness", its meaning and interpretation according to various dictionaries of the Russian language. Examples of statements by famous writers, scientists, philosophers and prominent people about their understanding of happiness. Happiness as a state of the human soul.

creative work, added 05/07/2011


historical character morphological structure of the word. Complete and incomplete simplification; his reasons. Enrichment of the language in connection with the process of re-decomposition. Complication and decorrelation, substitution and diffusion. The study of historical changes in the structure of the word.

term paper, added 06/18/2012


The concept as the basis for the formation of the meaning of the word, its lexical-grammatical and lexical-conceptual categories. The relationship between the concept and meaning of words. Interrelation of lexical and grammatical meanings of words. The essence of the process of grammaticalization.

1. "A verb is a part of speech that expresses the grammatical meaning of an action (i.e., a sign of a mobile, realized in time) and functions primarily as a predicate" [Yartseva, 1998, p. 104], that is, the main feature of the verb in all languages ​​of the world is movement or movement. N. D. Arutyunova noted that "the concept of the path as a purposeful movement plays a big role in relation not only to a person's life, but also to his mental actions and movements, since they are purposeful." [Arutyunova, 1999, p. sixteen].

Movement is a fundamental concept expressing the relations of objective reality. "The semantics of movement connects space and time. Movement is the third component included in the concept of chronotope." [Arutyunova, 1994, p. 4] It is the seme of motion that separates the verb from the noun, which does not have this seme. Movement or dynamics predetermines the distinction between static and dynamic verbs, the latter suggest the presence of movement, the former its absence.

The opposition "movement" - "state of rest" is of a semantic nature. The concept of "action" means a dynamic change of certain static relations [Gurevich, 1999, p. 175-176].

Verbs of motion belong to a number of the most significant units of natural language. Even psycholinguists G. Miller and F. Johnson-Laird drew attention to the fact that this group is quickly and easily absorbed by young children, despite the fact that for an adult, studying this topic can cause many difficulties, which has been repeatedly noted by researchers in the field of linguodidactics and RFL . In addition, movement lexemes are frequent, and these facts have led psycholinguists to say that movement verbs are "the most characteristically verbal of all the verbs).

In a broad sense, the verbs of movement or the verbs of movement mean any lexemes denoting the location of the subject in space. However, there are researchers who prefer to separate verbs of movement and verbs of movement. One of the most famous works on the subject? "Fundamentals of Structural Syntax" by L. Tenier (1959). This linguist draws a line between movement and movement verbs, accepting that movement verbs describe a way of changing location, while movement verbs focus on the direction of movement: "movement is an end, and movement is only a means to achieve it" [cit. . according to Gorban 2002, p.27], "movement is inherent in the subject, while movement is an external characteristic in relation to him" [ibid., p. 27]. To the verbs of motion (mouvement) L. Tenier refers those lexemes that describe way location changes, for example, fr. "marcher" ? "go, walk", "courir" ? "run", "trotter" ? "trot", "galoper" ? gallop, "ramper" ? "creep", "nager" ? "float" etc. To the verbs of displacement (dйplacement), indicating a certain direction regarding the starting point, he attributed fr. "monter" ? "to rise", "descendre" ? "go down", "aller" ? "leave", "venir" ? "come", "entrer" ? "enter", "sortir" ? "go out", etc. [Tenier, 1988, p. 298?299, 322?325]. Movement reflects the personal characteristics of the subject, indicating the method and means of movement that seem to him the most natural. Speaking of movement, we refer to the geometry of space, it is determined by the direction - up, down, there, here, etc. [Gorban 2002, p. 27-28].

There are researchers who attribute movement to a particular manifestation of movement, for example, V. G. Gak believes that the verbs of movement are "such verbs and predicates that indicate movement associated with overcoming the limits of some space (Peter enters the garden, Peter leaves from the garden)" [op. according to Gorban, 2002, p. 28].

In this paper, the terms "verbs of movement" and "verbs of movement" will be used as synonyms when naming verbal lexemes denoting the movement of living beings or objects in space. We do not plan to study other semantic groups that often appear in speech as "verbs of motion", for example, we will not consider the transition from one thermal or chemical state to another, describe verbs sensory perception or speaking, as well as modal verbs etc. We refer only to verbs that describe specific changes in the subject in space and time, and the subject of the phenomenon of movement in the broad sense is not our task in this study.

In this context, it should be noted that this work will consider both the basic and figurative (metaphorical) meanings of polysemantic verbs of motion. In the latter case, we are talking about movement not in the objective material world, but about movement within the framework of abstract concepts related to the development of phenomena (for example, sounds, events, thoughts, movement in time, etc.)

2. The semantic structure of the verbs of motion is a unity of interacting features that implement the categorial-lexical seme "movement in space" at the lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical levels.

Speaking about the lexical level, it is impossible not to note the work of cognitive scientists who dealt with this problem: L. Talmy, Dan I. Slobin, S. Wikner, S. Selimis.

When we study verbs of motion, we look at what is encoded in them from a lexical point of view. The appearance of any verb of movement implies the presence of a typical situation of movement/movement. We will call a participant in such a situation subject("figure" by . The areas of space occupied by the subject when moving can be described as way("path" [ibid., 61]). Movement occurs relative to a certain landmark object, or background("ground" [ibid., 61]). (Talmy, 1985, 62, 69)

At the lexical level, the categorial-lexical seme "movement in space" is realized in differential features that express integral semes:

? "travel environment"

? "vehicle"

? "way of moving"

? "intensity of movement".

The integral seme "environment of movement" expresses the spatial characteristics of the action and is realized in opposition to the following differential features:

? "moving on hard surfaces"

? "moving on water"

? "air travel".

The integral seme "way of moving" is represented in the following differential features:

? "moving by touching the surface, stepping"

? "moving, in contact with the surface with the whole body"

? "moving up, down, clinging hands and feet"

? "moving in contact with the surface indirectly"

? "moving, plunging into the environment"

? "moving without touching the surface"

The integral seme "means of transportation" is realized in differential features:

? "moving with the feet"

? "moving with arms and legs"

? "moving by the force of movement of the whole body"

? "moving with the help of technical Vehicle or riding"

? "moving with fins"

? "moving with wings"

The integral semes "way" and "means of transportation" express qualitative characteristic actions.

The seme "intensity of movement" expresses the spatio-temporal characteristic of the action and is specified by the following features:

? "intensity-neutral movement"

? "fast travel"

? "slow movement" [Gorban, 2002, p. 111-112].

There are other ways of classifying verbs of motion at the lexical level. So, according to C. Fillmore, the semantic dimensions of verbs of motion can be chosen in an unlimited number of ways, but among them he singles out the following:

? "path of movement" (cf. "ascend" - to rise, "advance" - to move forward)

? "the path of movement, taking into account the external environment" (cf. "climb" - to climb, "dive" - ​​to dive, "cross" - to cross). There are three sub-paragraphs in this paragraph:

o "moving on the ground" (cf. "travel" - to travel, "walk" - to walk)

o "moving on water" (cf. "swim"? to swim, "float"? to swim (about a ship))

o "moving through the air" (cf. "fly" - fly, "soar" - soar).

Here, however, it is necessary to pay attention to the ability of verbs of movement to move from one variety to another in connection with metaphorization. (Compare - We hovered around our guide? "we hovered around our guide", the original meaning of the verb "hover" - soar (about birds)).

? "the path of movement in relation to the starting or ending point" (cf. "arrive" - ​​to arrive, "alight" - to dismount, "enter" - to enter).

? "Method of movement" (cf. "lope" - skipping, "stride" - take long steps, "scurry" - run with small steps, "slog" - trudge with difficulty).

? "A sound that accompanies movement" (cf. "stump" - to walk, stomping, "scuffle" - to walk, shuffling).

? "Participation of the body" (cf. "stride" ? to take long steps, "creep" ? to crawl).

? "Speed ​​of movement" (cf. "blot" ? to rush with an arrow, "hurry" ? to hurry), etc. [Fillmore]

In this paper, the terminology of O. A. Gorban will be used.

3. One of the ways to distinguish between the verbs of movement in more detail is the principle of highlighting some semantic components of their meaning. So, for example, the seme structure of the analytical phrase "walk slowly" does not require special analysis: the verb of movement "walk" conveys the idea of ​​moving on foot, and the adverb that accompanies it indicates a small speed of movement. While the seme structure of the synthetic verb "trudge? walk (on foot) at low speed, with slow, heavy steps" which is synonymous with this analytical phrase, implicitly contains several characteristics of the movement being made.

Lexico-semantic groups of verbs of motion in various languages form a special system, which is a specific lexico-semantic microstructure of the dictionary, in the form of one of the nodes of its hyper-hyponymic hierarchy, where the hyperseme reflects the general in the meanings of words, and the hyposeme indicates the specificity of a particular meaning. So, for example, all the verbs of motion that make up the system are hyponyms in relation to the hypernym "movement in space". They differ from each other due to their hyposemes, indicating the differential features of each type (for example, a specific tool? a part of the body with which movement is performed) [Nikitin, 1983, p. 94].

According to the concept of M.V. Nikitin, the meanings of verbs of motion have incorporated actants. Among them are incorporated actants-somatisms, as well as semantic features accompanying the verbal action? speed, directionality, location, step ratio, etc. The intension of the lexical meaning of such verbs is represented by the hyposeme "movement of a person in space with the help of the muscular strength of the legs" and the hyposeme "way of movement". For example: "shuffle" ? walk without raising the feet properly, that is, to walk without raising the feet properly, almost without lifting the feet off the ground. Does the hyperseme often correspond to the interpretation of "walk... the feet", hyposemes? "without raising properly" (shuffling).

"Thus, the selection of verbs with incorporated actants is based on the categorical commonality of hypersemes, and the distinction within classes occurs along the line of hyposemes" [Nikitin, 1997, p. 96].

The task of our work is to study the issue of the ability of verbs of movement to combine, incorporate deep elements into the internal structure, which are able to characterize the movement being made without the participation of the context.

§ 119. As noted above, each word in any language expresses a certain lexical meaning or a set of different meanings - two or more. As in Russian, as in many other languages, most words express at least two meanings. It is easy to verify this by referring to explanatory dictionaries. So, for example, in modern Russian, according to the Dictionary of Modern Russian literary language, nouns mountain, river, auditorium and many others have two lexical meanings, water, sea and others - three, house- four, head - five , hand - eight, adjective green- five values, new - nine, old– 10, verb wear- nine, carry - 12, walk - 14, fall - 16, stand - 17, go - 26, etc., not counting the various shades of different meanings. For comparison, we can cite similar data from the Lithuanian language. In the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, for example, for a noun auditorium(audience) two values ​​are also indicated, Kalnas(mountain) - three meanings, namas(house) - six meanings (in the plural form namai- seven), ranka(hand) - ten, for an adjective naujas(new) - eight, for a verb kristi(fall) - 22 values, nesti(carry) - 26, eiti(go) - 35, etc. Words that express two or more lexical meanings are called polysemantic, or polysemic (polysemantic); the presence of at least two meanings in a word is called, respectively, polysemy, or polysemy (cf. Greek. poly-"lot", sema– "sign, meaning", polysemos- "multi-valued").

The number of words expressing only one lexical meaning (sometimes with different semantic shades) is extremely limited in many languages. In Russian, these include mainly words of foreign origin, terms from different branches of knowledge, many derived words, in particular, nouns with an abstract meaning, etc. In the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language, one meaning is indicated, for example, for nouns bicycle, cyclist, cyclist, tram, tram driver, tractor, tractor driver, tractor driver, airplane, aircraft building, pilot, pilot, collective farm, collective farmer, collective farmer, state farm, peasant, peasant woman, student, female student, expressiveness, literacy, stamina, courage, masculinity, adjectives scarlet, blue, black, brown, purple, bicycle, tractor, tram, peasant, student and others. Words that express no more than one lexical meaning are called unambiguous, or monosemic (monosemantic), the presence of only one meaning in a word - unambiguity, or monosemy (cf. Greek. monos- "one").

§ 120. The lexical meanings of many words, both single-valued and multi-valued, are a complex phenomenon. Just as many words consist of materially expressed parts, morphemes, as mentioned above, a single lexical meaning of a word can consist of different "pieces", elements, segments. Elementary, smallest, ultimate, i.e. indivisible further, the component part of the lexical meaning of the word is called seme(cf. Greek. sema). According to V. I. Kodukhov, "each meaning ... has several semantic features (sem)". The totality of this or that lexical meaning is called sememe.

The seme composition of the lexical meaning of a word, or sememe, can be explained by the example of the basic, nominative meanings of kinship terms, i.e. words denoting the names of kinship relationships: father, mother, son, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law and others. In the nominative meanings of each of these words, one seme, or archiseme, common to all of them, is singled out as a separate component; generic, integrating meaning - "relative". In addition, each of them has a number of differential semes, which are specific refinements of this generic concept. So, for the main, nominative meaning of the word father the following semes act as differential semes: 1) "male sex" (in contrast to the seme "female sex", as in the meaning of the words mother, daughter, niece etc.), 2) "parent" (in contrast to the seme "born", as in the meaning of the words son daughter), 3) "direct relationship" (in contrast to the seme "indirect relationship", as in the meaning of the words nephew niece), 4) "blood relationship" (in contrast to the seme "non-blood relationship", as in the meaning of the words stepfather, stepmother) 5) "first generation" (in contrast to this "second generation", "third generation", as in the meaning of the words grandfather, great-grandfather). A similar composition of semes is also characteristic of the nominative meanings (semes) of other terms of kinship; their nominative meanings differ from each other only by individual differential semes. For example, the nominative meaning of the word mother different from the corresponding meaning of the word father only the first of the above differential semes ("female"), the meaning of the word son- the second differential seme ("born"), etc.

In the lexical meanings of derivative, semantically motivated words, individual semes are expressed with the help of derivational morphemes and affixes. So, for example, in the meaning of nouns denoting the names of persons by type of activity, occupation, the seme "activity, occupation" can be expressed by suffixes -tel, -ist- and others (cf. the meanings of the words: teacher, lecturer, writer, leader; machinist, tanker, tractor driver and etc.); seme "female" in the meaning of nouns denoting the names of female persons - suffixes -to-, -nits- and others (cf. the meanings of the words: student, artist, tractor driver; teacher, lecturer, writer); the seme "incompleteness (of a sign)" in the meaning of some quality adjectives- suffix -ovate-(cf. word meanings: whitish, yellowish, reddish, thick, narrowish); seme "beginning (of action)" in the meaning of many verbs - prefix behind-(cf. word meanings: talk, sing, roar, light up, laugh) etc. According to the definition of I. S. Ulukhanov, at least two parts, two components are distinguished in the lexical meanings of such words: 1) the motivating part, i.e. part of the meaning expressed by the generating, motivating word, and 2) the formant part, i.e. part of the meaning expressed by a derivational means, or formant.

The lexical meanings of many derived words, in addition to the obligatory semantic components expressed by their generating and derivational means, also contain additional semantic components that are not directly expressed by the named elements of the corresponding derivatives. Such semantic components, or semes, are called idiomatic or phraseological. Idiomatic (phraseological) as a special semantic component is found, for example, in the composition of the nominative meanings of nouns teacher, writer, tractor driver etc. Similar nouns do not denote any person performing the corresponding work, but only one for whom the performance of this work is a profession, i.e. main type of work.

Some linguists, as one of the components of the lexical meaning, or "an integral part of the internal content", of a semantically motivated word consider it motivation, or motivation. which is understood as the “substantiation” of the sound appearance of this word, contained in the word and realized by the speakers, i.e. its exponent is an indication of the motive that determined the expression given value precisely with this combination of sounds, as if the answer to the question “Why is it called that?” ". In the linguistic literature, the compound term "internal form of the word" is also widely used to refer to the concept under consideration. As examples of words containing motivation, or having an internal form, you can give the names of the days of the week.Compare the Russian hells: Tuesday(the day is so named because it is the second of the week), Wednesday(day in the middle of the week) Thursday(fourth day of the week) Friday(fifth day of the week). Motivated names of different days of the week are also in other languages, for example, German Mittwoch(Wednesday; Wed. Mitte-"middle", Woche-"week"), Polish wtorek(Tuesday; Wed. secondtory-"second"), s "roda(Wednesday; Wed. s "rod -"among", s "rodek -"middle") czwartek(Thursday; Wed. czwarty-"fourth"), piqtek(Friday; Wed. piqty-"fifth"), Czech stfeda(Wednesday; Wed. stredrn-"average"), ctvrtek(Thursday; Wed. ctvrty-"fourth"), patek(Friday; Wed. pat u- "fifth"). In Lithuanian, all seven days of the week are called compound words formed from the stem of a noun diena(day) and the bases of the corresponding ordinal numbers, for example: pirmadienis(Monday; Wed. pinnas-"first"), antradienis(Tuesday; Wed. antras- "second"), treciadienis(Wednesday; Wed. trecias-"third"), etc.

§ 121. The totality of semes (archisemes and differential semes) of one or another lexical meaning of a word, this or that sememe, forms core given value, which is also called denotative meaning (from lat. denotatum- "marked, marked, marked"), conceptual meaning (from lat. conceptus- "representation of something, concept"), a conceptual core, or a denotative, conceptual seme, conceptual seme. The core of the lexical meaning of a word, its denotative, conceptual seme is "the most important part of the lexical meaning", which "in most significant words constitutes a mental reflection of one or another phenomenon of reality, an object (or class of objects) in a broad sense (including actions, properties, relations etc.)".

In addition to the conceptual core, the lexical meanings of many words include various additional, concomitant, peripheral meanings, or connotations called connotative values, or connotations(from lat. sop- "together" and notatio-"designation"). In linguistic literature, connotative meanings, or semes, are explained very ambiguously. Most often, connotative meaning is understood as "the additional content of a word (or expression), its accompanying semantic or stylistic shades, which are superimposed on its main meaning, serve to express various kinds of expressive-emotional-evaluative overtones...", "emotional, expressive, stylistic additions to the main meaning, giving the word a special color. In explanatory dictionaries, the description of the lexical meanings of words containing connotative semes is accompanied by appropriate evaluative marks, for example, in the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language: dad(colloquially and regionally), head(colloquially) belly(colloquially) Virgo(obsolete, uiotr. in poetic and stylized speech), cheeks(obsolete, poet.), eye(obsolete, and folk poet.), forehead(obsolete and poet.), glutton(colloquial), Swedish(outdated, and spacious.), big-eyed(colloquially) mischievous(spacious) mischief(spacious) go to school(colloquial), beg(spacious) sleep(colloquially, with a touch of contempt), eat(roughly colloquial). These semes are most often found in the meanings of words containing evaluative suffixes, suffixes of emotional evaluation. The same dictionary presents some personal nouns with evaluative suffixes: boy, boy, mother, mother, mother, mother, father, father, son, son, son, man(accompanied by the tag "colloquial"), mommy, daddy(obsolete, colloquial), human flesh- in meaning. "man" (colloquial, usually joking), father, brother, brother, girl, girl, girl, boy, daddy, daddy, daddy(spacious) friend, friend(caress.), brother, brother(reduce and caress), mother(obsolete, and folk poet.).

In the lexical meanings of some words, connotative meaning components, connotative semes come to the fore. According to A.P. Zhuravlev, they have a "conceptual (i.e. conceptual. - V.N.) the core, although it exists, does not express the essence of meaning. "In the meaning of the word tall, for example, "the main thing is not that it is a person, but that it is "tall, clumsy man.” Some interjections are characterized by similar semantics. According to Yu.S. wow! Ugh! or brrr!) or the transmission of commands - incentives for certain actions (stop! away! jump! on! in the sense of “take”, etc.)".

Both in Russian and in other languages, obviously, words with meanings that do not have connotative semes (in the sense given above) prevail. Most words in different languages ​​express only conceptual meanings. Connotative semes are absent, in particular, in the nominative meanings of most words. different parts speeches such as: man, friend, father, mother, son, hand, leg, head, house, forest, water, mountain, river, lake, white, blue, big, small, fast, young, old, three, ten, fifteen, long ago, early, today, go, sit, write, read, talk and many others.

§ 122. Different semantic elements of a word, or lexeme (both separate lexical meanings of a polysemantic word, or sememe, and parts, components of a single meaning, or seme), are connected with each other by certain relationships. This allows us to talk about the semantic, or semantic, structure of the word (both polysemantic and unambiguous). Semantic structure of the word(lexemes) are the relationships between different semantic elements (sememes and semes) of a given word as a complex whole.

Speaking about the semantic structure of a word, linguists have in mind, first of all, different meanings of polysemantic words, connections and relationships between them. According to the definition of V. I. Kodukhov, " semantic structure of the word is formed by semantic components (meanings, lexico-semantic variants) of different types.

The connection between the different meanings of a polysemantic word is that they reflect objects and phenomena of reality that are similar in some respect and have a common semantic component. D. N. Shmelev explains this connection in the following words: “Forming a definite semantic unity, the meanings of a polysemantic word are connected on the basis of the similarity of realities (in form, appearance, color, value, position, also commonality of function) or contiguity ... Between the meanings of a polysemantic word there is a semantic connection, which is also expressed in the presence of common elements of meaning in them - seme. This can be shown by the example of a noun board, which differs, in particular, in the following meanings: 1) a flat cut of a tree obtained by longitudinal sawing of a log; 2) a large plate on which they write with chalk; 3) a shield for announcements or any indicators, etc. The connection between these meanings is found in the fact that different objects denoted by this word have some external similarity, which is reflected in the definition of different meanings: a flat cut of a tree, a large plate, a shield; they all denote a specific object that has a flat shape.

The differences between the individual meanings of a polysemantic word lie, first of all, in the presence of certain differential semes in each of them, reflecting the specific features of the designated objects, such as the purpose of the corresponding object (a board for making something, for example, furniture; a board for writing chalk; notice board, etc.), the material from which the indicated object is made, the features of the external shape of this object, size, color, etc.

When determining the semantic structure of a word, it is also taken into account that the lexical meaning (sememe) has its constituent parts (seme), which, in turn, are connected with each other by known relationships. Different semes of one sememe are already united by the fact that they are all associated with the designation of the same object, phenomenon and, thus, represent a kind of structural whole. At the same time, they differ from each other according to different features, on the basis of which their classification is carried out (cf. archisemes and differential semes of this or that sememe, denotative and connotative semes, etc.). On this basis, one can speak of the structure of the lexical meaning of the word, which, according to the definition of V. I. Kodukhov, "is made up of the semantic components of each value." According to A. G. Gak, "each lexical-semantic variant is a hierarchically organized set sem- a structure in which an integrating generic meaning (archiseme), a differentiating species meaning (differential seme), as well as potential semes reflecting the side properties of an object that actually exist or are attributed to it by the collective are distinguished.

The structural-semantic direction in our time is represented by several varieties: in some cases, more attention is paid to the structure, in others - to semantics. It is also undoubted that science strives for the harmony of these principles.
The structural-semantic direction is the next stage in the evolution of traditional linguistics, which has not stopped in its development, but has become the fundamental basis for the synthesis of the achievements of various aspects in the study and description of language and speech. That is why all existing directions “grow up” and “grow up” on the fruitful soil of traditions, “bud off” from the main trunk - the main direction in the development of Russian linguistics, which are the syntactic concepts of M. V. Lomonosov, F. I. Buslaev, A. A. Potebnia, A. M. Peshkovsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, V. V. Vinogradov and others, who considered syntactic phenomena in the unity of form and content.
In traditional syntax, aspects of the study of syntactic units were not clearly distinguished, but one way or another they were taken into account when describing syntactic units and their classification.
In the works of representatives of the structural-semantic direction, the best traditions of Russian syntactic theory are carefully preserved and developed, enriched with new fruitful ideas developed during the one-aspect study of syntactic units.
The development of the structural-semantic direction is stimulated by the needs of teaching the Russian language, where a multi-aspect, volumetric consideration of language and speech means is necessary.
Kovtunova I. I. Modern Russian language: Word order and actual division of the sentence.- M., 1976.- P. 7
Proponents of the structural-semantic direction rely on the following theoretical positions in the study and classification (description) of syntactic units:

1. Language, thinking and being (objective reality) are interconnected and interdependent.
2. Language is a historical phenomenon, constantly developing and improving.
3. Language and speech are interconnected and interdependent, therefore a functional approach to the study of syntactic units is of fundamental importance - an analysis of their functioning in speech.
4. Categories of language form a dialectical unity of form and content (structure and semantics, structures and meaning)
5. The language structure is a system of systems (subsystems, levels). Syntax is one of the levels of the general system of the language.

Syntactic units form a level subsystem.

1. Syntactic units are multifaceted.

7 The properties of syntactic units are manifested in syntactic links and relations.
8. Many linguistic and speech syntactic phenomena are syncretic.
Many of these provisions are fundamental for all levels of the language system, therefore they are considered in the courses "Introduction to Linguistics", "General Linguistics", "Historical Grammar of the Russian Language", etc. However, they cannot be ignored when analyzing and describing the syntactic system.
Let us explain those provisions that are especially important for describing the units of syntax.
One of them is the principle of systematization of the language system. All modern linguistics is permeated with the idea of ​​systematization of linguistic and speech facts. It follows from this: a) language as a system is a whole, consisting of interconnected and interacting elements; b) there are no and cannot be phenomena that fall out of the system of language, phenomena outside the system.
The classics of Russian linguistics studied language as a non-single-level system, noted inter-level connections and interactions. In modern linguistics, much attention is paid to the delimitation of levels, their differentiation.
In the structural-semantic direction, after understanding the differentiation of levels, tendencies are outlined: a) to explore and describe the complex interaction of levels, their interweaving. In syntactic works, this is manifested in the identification of connections between vocabulary and syntax, morphology and syntax (see the relevant sections); b)" in syntactic works to establish a hierarchy of syntactic units: a phrase, a simple sentence, a complex sentence, a complex syntactic whole. Two approaches to the description of syntactic units are outlined: from lower to higher (approach "from below"), from higher to lower (approach "from above"). ”), depending on the approach, the researcher discovers different aspects of syntactic units, their different properties.
specific feature structural-semantic direction is a multidimensional study and description of the language, and in particular syntactic units.1
If in traditional linguistics a voluminous study of syntactic units relied to a large extent on the intuition of researchers, then in the structural-semantic direction the most essential features of phenomena noted within the framework of any one-aspect direction are consciously combined.
However, it is obvious that it is difficult to take into account all one-aspect characteristics (there are too many of them!), and in many cases it is not necessary if a small number of signs is sufficient to determine the place of a syntactic fact in the system of others (during classification and qualification).
For linguistic and methodological purposes, the main features of syntactic units are structural and semantic.
The main criterion for the classification of syntactic units at the present stage of development of syntactic theory is recognized as structural.
Based on the dialectical unity of form and content, in which content is decisive, semantics is more important, because there is not and cannot be an empty, “empty” form. However, only those "meanings" that are expressed (formulated) by grammatical or lexicogrammatic means are accessible to observations, generalizations, etc. Therefore, not only in structuralist directions, but also in the structural-semantic analysis of the phenomena of language and speech, the primary is the structural approach, attention to the structure, to the form of syntactic phenomena. Let us explain what has been said with the following examples.
The distinction between two-part and one-part sentences in many cases relies only on a structural criterion (the number of main members and their morphological properties are taken into account - the way of expression). Wed: I love music. - I love music; Someone is knocking at the window. - They are knocking at the window; Everything is quiet around. - Quiet around, etc. Semantic differences between two-part and one-part sentences are insignificant.
The selection of incomplete sentences of the type Father - to the window is also based on a structural criterion, since in semantical terms this sentence is complete.
The preference for a structural criterion over a semantic one in determining the scope of the members of a sentence was shown on p. eighteen.
In some cases, participial and adjective phrases and even subordinate clauses can act as semantic concretizers. For example: A life passed without serving the broad interests and tasks of society has no justification (Leskov).
And if we consistently carry out the semantic criterion for the classification of syntactic units, if we take the requirement of semantic completeness to the extreme, then the division of sentences in such cases can be represented in the form of two components, that is, the mechanism for constructing such sentences will practically not be clarified.
However, in the structural-semantic direction, the structural classification criterion is not always consistently observed. If structural indicators are not bright, semantics plays a decisive role. Such cases have already been considered when clarifying the connections between vocabulary, morphology and syntax. semantics can be crucial when distinguishing between direct object and subject (Kedr broke a hurricane), when determining syntactic function infinitive (cf .: I want to write a review. - I ask you to write a review), etc. A more rigorous, precise and complete definition of the nature of a syntactic phenomenon is possible only taking into account structural and semantic differences.
Methodological note. In the theoretical and practical part of the school textbook, either structure or semantics are highlighted. So, when distinguishing between two-part and one-part sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when distinguishing varieties of one-part verb sentences, the main criterion is semantic; when distinguishing varieties of allied compound sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when classifying non-union sentences, it is semantic. In general, the textbook is characterized by flexibility justified by language and speech material in the ratio of structural and semantic indicators in the qualification and classification of language material.
The next feature of the structural-semantic direction is the consideration of the meanings of the elements (components) of syntactic units and the relationships between them in the qualification of syntactic phenomena. In traditional linguistics, the focus is on the essence of the syntactic unit itself, its properties; in structural directions, the focus is on the relationship between syntactic units.
In the structural-semantic direction, both the meaning of the elements and the meaning of the relations are taken into account. In the most general form, they can be defined in the following way: the meaning of elements is their lexico-grammatical semantics, the meaning of relations is the meaning that is found in one element of the system in relation to another.
The elements (components) of phrases are the main and dependent words, simple sentences - sentence members (word forms), complex sentences - their parts (simple sentences), complex syntactic whole - simple and complex sentences.
Let us show the difference between the meaning of relations and the meaning of elements by comparing the semantics of the following phrases: sawing firewood and sawing firewood. With a structural approach, the meaning of these phrases is object relations. With a structural-semantic approach, the meanings of these phrases differ: sawing firewood - “action and the object on which the action passes”; sawing firewood - "an objectified action and an object on which the action passes."
The synthesis of the meaning of the elements and the meaning of the relations makes it possible to more accurately determine the semantics of the phrase as a whole than with a structural characteristic, when only the meaning of the second element is noted, which is interpreted as the meaning of the phrase.
The distinction between the meanings of relations and the meanings of elements explains the reasons for the dual qualification of the semantics of phrases, which is observed in modern works on syntax: cloudy day - attributive relations and "an object and its attribute"; chop with an ax - object relations and "action and instrument of action", etc. The first definitions of meanings are more characteristic of modern syntactic theories of the structural direction, the second - for the structural-semantic direction.
The meaning of relations can correspond to the meaning of elements (golden autumn, snowy winter, etc.), it can introduce additional “meanings” into the semantics of elements: the value of an object,
places, etc. (rain with snow, road in the forest, etc.), can change the meaning of elements (seashore, birch leaves, etc.).
The semantic relations between sentences in a compound are determined not only by the grammatical, but also by the lexical semantics of the combined sentences. So, in the sentences I am sad: there is no friend with me (Pushkin) and I am cheerful: my friend is with me, the very possibility of temporal and causal relationships is determined by both lexical and grammatical semantics. Here, for example, goal values ​​are not possible, since the type value of the first sentence (state) cannot be combined with a sentence that has a goal value.
Meamp; du sentences I love tea and It will rain soon, it is impossible to establish semantic connections due to the incompatibility of the lexical semantics of these sentences.
It is obvious that the grammatical semantics of complex sentences is necessary not in itself, but as the background that allows sentences to be “clashed” in such a way as to complicate their lexical semantics with additional meanings, to reveal their meaningful reserves. For example: Teacher, educate a student so that there is someone to learn from later (Vinokurov). The semantics of this complex sentence as a whole is not a simple sum of the "meanings" of the individual sentences. The message of the first part becomes deeper and sharper when it is supplemented with an indication of the goal revealed by the subordinate clause. The informative content of this complex sentence undoubtedly includes the lexical and grammatical meanings of the elements (main and subordinate clauses) and the meaning of the relations between them. An analysis of the semantics of phrases and complex sentences, taking into account the meanings of elements and relations, shows that the specificity of the elements of syntactic units is most fully and accurately revealed in the connections and relations between them.
The next feature of the structural-semantic direction, organically related to the first two, is the attention to the phenomena of transitivity (syncretism), which are found at all levels of language and speech, when studying a language in any aspect.
Syntactic units have a complex of differential features, among which the main ones are structural and semantic. For the convenience of description, syntactic units are systematized (classified), while types, subtypes, varieties, groups, etc. of syntactic phenomena are distinguished, which in turn have a set of differential features.
The harmony of classifications is violated by syntactic phenomena that combine the properties of different classes in the synchronous system of the language. They qualify as transitional (syncretic). Interacting syntactic phenomena can be represented as intersecting, partially overlapping circles, each of which has its own center (core) and periphery (see the diagram below).
The center (core) includes syntactic phenomena typical for a particular classification rubric, which have the maximum concentration of differential features, their complete set. On the periphery, there are syntactic phenomena that do not have or are not clearly expressed any differential features characteristic of the center. The shaded segment is the area of ​​intermediate formations, which are characterized by the balance of combined differential features.
The different correlation of the properties of the compared syntactic phenomena can be shown using the transitivity scale, placing it in intersecting circles.

The end points of the scale A and B denote the compared syntactic units and their varieties, between which in the synchronous system of the language, especially speech, there is an infinite number of transitional (syncretic) links, "flowing" one into the other. For the convenience of presentation, we reduce the number of transitional links to three, highlighting them as key points, milestones.
AB, AB, AB are transitional connecting steps, or links, reflecting the interaction between correlative syntactic phenomena. Transitional links include the facts of language and speech, synthesizing the differential features of A and B.
Syncretic phenomena are heterogeneous in the proportion of combined properties: in some cases, there are more signs of type A, in others, properties of type B predominate, in others, an approximate balance of combined properties (AB) is observed. Therefore, syncretic phenomena are divided into two groups: peripheral (Ab and aB) and intermediate (AB). The boundary between typical syntactic phenomena runs in the AB zone. The transition scale allows you to visually show fluctuations in specific gravity matching differential characters.
The presence of a transition zone between typical units (A and B) connects the units of syntax, and especially their varieties, into a system and makes the boundaries between them fuzzy and unclear. L. V. Shcherba wrote: ... it must be remembered that only extreme services are clear
teas. Intermediate ones in the very source - in the minds of the speakers - turn out to be vacillating, indefinite. However, this is something vague and vacillating and should most of all attract the attention of linguists.
A complete picture of the system of the syntactic structure of the Russian language cannot be given by studying only typical cases characterized by a "bundle" of differential features. It is necessary to study the interaction and mutual influence of syntactic units, taking into account the transitional (syncretic) links that reflect the richness of its possibilities and the dynamics of its development in the synchronous system of the language. To ignore syncretic phenomena means to reduce and impoverish the object of study. Without taking into account syncretic formations, a deep and comprehensive classification of syntax units is impossible. Transitions (overflows) without sharp dividing lines are observed between all units of syntax and their varieties.
Transitional phenomena not only take place in any one system (subsystem, etc.) of the language, but also connect its different levels, reflecting the interaction between them. As a result, even with level differentiation, syncretic facts (intermediate and peripheral) are found, which are interpreted as interlevel ones.
Thus, both levels and aspects are mutually permeable.
Among the many factors that determine the phenomenon of transitivity, we note three: 1) the combination of features that characterize various syntactic units, due to their level nature; 2) the combination of features that characterize syntactic phenomena, due to their multidimensionality; 3) the combination of features due to the superposition (synthesis) of the values ​​of the elements and the values ​​of the relations. We illustrate the stated provisions.
Synthesis of differential properties of the main syntactic units related to different levels syntactic subsystem, we will illustrate with the following examples, in a number of which Ab, AB and aB are the zone of transitional cases between a complex sentence and a simple, complicated introductory word:
A - Everyone knows that he is a young man.
Ab - It is known that he is a young man.
AB - It is known: he is a young man.
a B - It is known that he is a young man.
B - He is known to be a young man.
We will show the discrepancy between the semantic and formal structure as a consequence of the multidimensional nature of syntactic units using the following example: I love a thunderstorm in early May ... (Tyutchev). Such proposals are considered by some scientists as one-component definitely personal, others as two-component with incomplete implementation of the structural scheme. The dual qualification of such proposals is due to a different approach to their analysis. If we take only semantic properties as the basis for classification (there is an agent - a logical subject and an action - a predicate), then this sentence must be qualified as a two-part one; considering only structural properties, then this proposal must be qualified as one-part; if both are taken into account, then such a proposal should be interpreted as a transitional (intermediate) between two-part and one-part. On the transitivity scale, such a sentence falls into the shaded segment.
We will show the synthesis of differential features due to the superposition of the values ​​of the elements and the values ​​of the relations using the following example: A path in the forests is kilometers of silence, calmness (Paustovsky). In the phrase path in the forests, the lexical and grammatical meaning of the place of the word form in the forests is complicated by the meaning of the definition (cf .: forest path).
From all that has been said, the conclusion follows: it is necessary to distinguish between typical syntactic units and their varieties, which have a complete set of differential features, and transitional (syncretic) phenomena with a combination of features. It is extremely important for both syntactic research and teaching practice not to strive to “squeeze” syncretic phenomena into the Procrustean bed of typical cases, but to allow variations in their qualification and classification, to note the combined properties. This will make it possible to overcome dogmatism in teaching practice, and in theoretical studies it will entail a freer, more flexible and deeper interpretation of syntactic phenomena.
Methodological note. In school syntax, the possibility of posing several questions to the same member of the sentence is noted (see notes on pp. 64, 72, etc.). Attention to the ambiguous members of the sentence not only expands the circle of knowledge of students, but also contributes to the development of their linguistic instinct, cognitive activity, thinking and speech. However, the school should not make the ambiguous members of the sentence the center of study, although the teacher must know about their existence in order not to require an unambiguous answer where a double interpretation is possible.