Реферат на тему Synonymy of syntactic constructions: parallel gerundial, participial and infinitive constructions.

Содержание:

INTRODUCTION.. 3

THE
CONCEPT OF SYNTACTIC SYNONYMY.. 4

CONCLUSION.. 16

REFERESCES. 17

Введение:

Synonymy is the least studied area of linguistics, both in vocabulary
and grammar, and especially in syntax. Thanks to the numerous works that have
appeared recently and are devoted to certain specific questions of grammatical
synonymy, it can now be said, that the development of this question has given
much both in theoretical and practical terms.

Synonymy is one of the sources of language enrichment with expressive
means, so it is of particular interest for the development of problems related
to the struggle for the culture of speech, with the study of the language and
style of fiction and public speeches, with the tasks of constructing
stylistics.

In this regard, the study of lexical–phraseological, grammatical and
syntactic synonymy acquires not only theoretical, but also practical
significance. Knowing synonymy makes it possible to explain the direction of
language development, ways and ways of changing its various его aspects, as well as facilitates access to the
richness of expressive means of speech, allows you to present them in the
system, which is especially necessary when learning a foreign language.

In this paper, an attempt is made to describe some synonymous series of
modern English, consisting of syntactic constructions of “secondary predication”
and subordinate clauses.

Заключение:

Language, being a means of social communication, is constantly
developing and improving. It is in constant change, which is determined, on the
one hand, by the progressive movement of society and its accompanying
extralinguistic factors and, on the other hand, by the laws of the development
of the language itself as a system, that is, by intra–linguistic factors. The
needs of human communication, the development of society, the need to express
complex relationships and connections between objects of real reality
contribute to the continuous replenishment of the language with new units.

Synonymous connections and relationships are found in a wide variety of
areas of language: in vocabulary, in phraseology, morphology and syntax.
Synonymy of language units is based on the principle of dialectical unity of
common and different, which reflects different sides of the same phenomena or
relations of objective reality. From a philosophical point of view, the problem
of synonymy is part of a broader problem of identity and difference.

In synonymy, there is a similarity of grammatical meanings, which allows
you to express the same idea in different ways and convey a variety of
stylistic and semantic shades. Synonymous syntax units act as components of the
grammatical system of the language that are in the relationship of
replenishment. The relation of synonymous replenishment in the grammatical
system of the language “is not a sign of an irrational, “excessive”
construction of this system, but has a great positive value as a means of creating
great flexibility and “maneuverability” in the organization of speech, and also
creates an additional ability to express various shades of grammatical
meanings”.

Фрагмент текста работы:

THE CONCEPT OF SYNTACTIC
SYNONYMY The concept of synonymy in language comes from lexicology, where this
phenomenon has been studied in detail. However, recently this term has become
used in phonetics, grammar and syntax. Although the term syntactic synonymy has
gained recognition in the linguistic literature, it is not interpreted
unambiguously. Let’s briefly consider the interpretation of syntactic synonymy
by various linguists.

For the first time, the term “grammatical synonyms” was used by Peshkovsky A. M.
When considering the question of grammatical synonymy, he defines it as
follows: “meanings of words and phrases that are close to each other in their
grammatical meaning”. He was interested in what language means can be used to express
the same idea. Its definition is based on the similarity of different
constructions in grammatical meaning.[1]

Grammatical synonyms are divided as follows: Peshkovsky divided them
into two groups: a) morphological, b) syntactic. In addition, he notes that the
stylistic possibilities in syntax are much more diverse and significant than in
morphology. Syntactic synonyms of Peshkovsky A. M. includes various
cases of convergence in the meaning of all possible grammatical forms (tenses,
moods), various schemes of sentence construction, prepositions and
conjunctions, as well as the possibility of replacing a noun with a pronoun.[2]

Later in the works of professors Galkina–Fedoruk E. M.,
Richter G. I., Gvozdeva A. I., Kovtunova I. M.,
Sukhotina V. P., Shendels E. I., Yartseva V. N.
and others give an interpretation of the concept of synonymy in the language,
especially in syntax.

As a result, certain classifications of synonymous constructions are
developed. Synonyms are distinguished at various levels: morphological,
lexical, word combinations, simple sentences, complex sentences, word
formation.

Let’s consider the following characteristics of the concept of syntactic
synonymy in various authors: definition, criteria for synonymy of syntactic
constructions, classification, as well as the concepts of synonymic series and
syntactic field.

A review of the various definitions offered by linguists indicates, that
they all contain an indication of a common meaning that can be traced in the
constructs being compared.

So professor Gvozdev A. N. under syntactic synonyms (S.S.)
understands “parallel turns of speech that differ in subtle shades of meaning
and therefore in many cases can replace one another”.[3]

Sukhotin V. P. defines S. S. as “such structurally
different combinations of the same words (phrases), as well as sentences, their
parts and more complex syntactic formations of a given language in a given
epoch of its development, which express homogeneous relations and connections
of phenomena of real reality”.[4]

Some researchers of S. S use the similarity of grammatical meaning
or similar syntactic relations, or the same content or the same general
semantic meaning as a basis for defining S .S. An example of this is the
following definitions:

“Syntactic synonyms as expressions, so and sentences, we believe such
design, in which contains identical the value generated by words, lexically
close in value, performs the same function, but are structurally differently
organized, however able to replace one another, for example, in the phrases:
his father’s house, the house of his father; the man with the crooked nose,
flat nose people…” or “syntactic synonyms — is any syntactic units built on
different models but indicate similar syntactic relations”.

When considering S. S., professor Piotorovsky is primarily
interested in the stylistic side of the issue, since in his opinion “syntactic
categories are usually identified in the form of several stylistic synonyms,
each of which has its own additional stylistic shades”. When analyzing S. S.,
it considers sentences with different word order: sentences with direct and
inverted word order, different positions of the sentence members in the
sentence structure, phrases with different possible locations of their components.[5]

Based on the material of the Russian language, the possibility of
combining the members of a sentence in permutations was pointed by Peshkovsky A. M.
He considered free word order “the main treasury of syntactic synonymy of the
Russian language”.[6] However, these claims were
not proven in his work “Relations of different word positions in the sentence
and syntactic synonymy”. We also do not find any criteria for establishing S. S.
Obviously we should agree with Zhilin I. M. is convinced that such
sentences, which differ in word order, cannot be considered S. S.[7]

Based on the above definitions S. S., we can agree with the
definition given to this phenomenon Zhilin I. M.:

“Syntactic synonyms are models of such syntactic constructions
(sentences, turns, phrases, and various suggested–noun combinations) that have
identical or similar semantic meanings, have adequate grammatical meanings, express
similar syntactic relationships, and are capable of interchanging under certain
context conditions”.[8]

What are the criteria for synonymy of syntactic constructions? We cannot
answer this question unambiguously, because sometimes we find completely
opposite points of view on the discussion. So professor Yartseva V. N.
considers S. S. are “similarity of grammatical meaning and structural
affinity” as the basis for the allocation of S. .S.”, professor Galkina–Fedoruk E. M.
identifies the following main features:

1. semantic
generality due to the same lexical meaning of most words included in synonymous
constructions;

2. the possibility of
mutual substitution on the basis of the semantic community;

3. different
grammatical structure, not only in relation to the use of different forms of
parts of speech, but also different parts of speech.

The more correct and recognized point of view on this issue is
considered to be the opinion of Suhotin V. P.: “… one of the most
important objective signs of synonymy of certain syntactic formations is the
possibility of interchanging without violating the basic meaning of the
juxtaposed combinations. Interchangeability of syntactic constructions is a
very significant indicator of synonymy, although the possibilities of this kind
of interchangeability are limited”. It is introduced by Sukhotin into the main
feature of S. S. and introduced by him into the definition of the concepts
of syntactic synonyms.[9]

Undoubtedly, we should agree with the statement Zhilin I. M.,
that interchangeability is one of the important criteria of synonymy, because
it is precisely in it that the meaning of the phenomenon of synonymylies.[10]

In total there are 5 criteria for establishing synonymy of syntactic
models:

1. Possibility of
interchangeability of syntactic models in the same syntactic environment.

2. Identity of the
semantic meaning of different models in their structure.

3. The adequacy of
grammatical meaning and on this basis, the models perform the same syntactic
functions in the sentence structure.

4. Similarity of the
structural structure of models.

5. Coverage of a
sufficiently large class of words that could be used to fill in synonymous
models.

The first criterion is considered the most important. It is the most
common for many languages, and other criteria may vary. Therefore, this
criterion can be considered the main one.

An additional, indirect criterion for synonymy of models can be the
possibility of translation of each of the synonymous constructions of the
original language by the corresponding synonymous models of the translation
language.

The development of the question of syntactic synonymy allows us to carry
out all possible classifications of syntactic synonyms in different plans and
from different points of view. A complete, accurate classification is important
and necessary, but it can only be successfully performed, if the synonymy of
models is identified and described in detail. The following types of
classifications have been developed in the linguistic literature.

Professor Shendels E. I. distinguishes by the meaning of
interspecific and intra–aspect synonyms. By interspecific, it means identifying
all possible ways of transmitting a given meaning in the language, regardless
of, whether they are grammatical or not. The starting point is the fact of
reality, translated into the content of the thought. Intra–aspect synonyms are
only homogeneous quantities. Intra–aspect synonyms are divided into systemic
and contextualones. Systemic, in our opinion Schendels E. I, are homogeneous
grammatical forms (structures) that “coincide in their basic grammatical
meaning and differ in additional grammatical meanings and the volume of
meanings”.   Grammatical forms
(structures) that converge under the pressure of context in one of their
grammatical meanings form contextual synonyms.[11]

Maximov L. Y. considers syntactic synonyms at the level of a
complex sentence, distinguishing between synonyms of the same type and those of
different types. At the same time, it conducts stratification of synonyms in
the structural plan, where it distinguishes synonymous constructions of the
same level:[12]

— synonyms at the morphological level;

— synonyms at the word level;

— synonyms at the level of a simple sentence;

— synonyms at the level of a complex sentence;

— synonyms at the level of syntagmatic division;

Synonymy of detached verbs and subordinate clauses, prepositiona–case
constructions and subordinate clauses refers them to synonymous constructions
of different levels.

From the point of view of the structure of synonymous syntactic units,
equal–structure and different–structure formations are distinguished in a
number of structures. Kovtunova I. M. believes that synonyms can only
be equal–structured syntactic units, Sukhotin V. P., Shendels E. I.
hold the opposite opinion. Maximov L. Y. believes that it is possible
to see synonymy between equal–structure and different–structure formations.

The facts of language show that synonymy can be observed both in the
sphere of equilateral and in the sphere of versatile units.

Piotorovsky P. G. distinguishes between language and speech
synonyms. By speech, he means words, expressions, and grammatical forms, “which
only in a certain context and special metaphorical use become equivalent to
language synonyms”.

Based on the above, the following types of synonyms should be distinguished:

— synonymous phrase models in the structure of an
elementary sentence;

— synonymous with model, elementary sentences;

— synonymous with model, syntactic units into the
structure complex and complicated sentences;

— synonymous models of complete complex sentences or
more complex syntactic formations.

According to the volume of synonymic units’ values, they are classified
into interspecific and intra–specific ones. Stylistically, there are book–based,
colloquial and neutral syntactic synonyms.

A synonymous series can be considered a specific subsystem of models
that are combined by expressing и the same syntactic relations in different
grammatical constructions. Being a subsystem in the general syntax system, the
synonymous series is an open, incomplete formation that is capable of changes,
additions, and reductions в due to changes occurring in the language.

A synonymous series arises from a description of a language in which
language units appear in their most important functions, revealing their
syntagmatic properties (lexical and syntactic compatibility, typical contexts
for implementing basic grammatical categories, etc.). In this description of a
language, grammar appears as a set of language tools necessary to express a
particular concept. However, it is not only the list of tools that express a
certain content that is important, but the rules, reasons and conditions for
their use, so the rules for the functioning of these tools.

This principle of language description clearly demonstrates the
functionality of the approach to language research, which is an urgent task in
theoretical linguistics. More Humboldt V. wrote “the language itself is
not a product of activity (Ergon), but of activity (Energia).”[13]

This statement is important for describing and teaching a foreign
language.

To generate speech in a foreign language, it is not enough to know the
basic inventory of the language (vocabulary, grammatical forms and
constructions, etc.). It is necessary to master the laws of formation and
functioning of language units. Syntactic units are formed as a result of
semantic and syntactic distribution of the word. Therefore, the meaning of a
phrase and sentence as basic units of syntax is a dialectical unity of lexical
and grammatical meaning.

From the definition of syntactic synonymy given by us, it is clear that
synonymy in syntax is actually meant, when two or more syntactic constructions
are present in the language to express this relation. A set of such equivalent
or equivalent syntactic constructs is a syntactic or synonymous series. The
number of members in particular synonymous row may vary. The most common case
is a synonymous series consisting of two or three, less commonly four, five, or
more members.

When describing a syntactic series, professor Shvedova N. Y.
also identifies a set of constructions that in the language system have the
ability of substitution, due to their common grammatical meaning, or the
ability to be used in identical functions. This ability to replace one another,
based on the commonality of grammatical semantics, was called Shvedova’s functional–semantic
correlativity.[14]

There are two types of correlation: proper correlation and doubletness.
Proper correlativity is nothing more than syntactic synonymy of constructions.
It assumes the possibility of interchanging constructions United by a common
grammatical meaning, but differing in its shades. Doubletness refers to the
semantic and functional equivalence of constructions that overlap completely
within a common grammatical meaning. Therefore, the syntactic series in the
interpretation of Shvedova N. Y. can be called synonymous-variable
series, because в it combines syntactic synonyms and variants.[15]

Shendels E. I. points out the difference between synonyms and
variants: “… the difference between grammatical synonyms and variants is as
follows. Grammatical synonymy combines various syntactic models that differ
from each other in both structure and content. The difference in the content
for the system of grammatical meanings, with system regular performance. The
meaning of syntactic models is close, but never exactly the same. Model
variants are changes within the model itself that do not turn it into a different
model. Variants may be significant, if they express the actual sentence
structure, stylistic and emotional connotations , and other non–systematic
meanings. Variants are insignificant if they are associated with fluctuations
in the grammatical norm. Irrelevant options are referred to as syntactical
doublets. Variants are not synonymous, because they are either identical in
meaning (doublets), or their semantic difference does not affect the system
grammatical meanings.”[16]

A group of syntactic variants makes up a variable series that differs
from the synonymous series in syntax.

In a syntactic series, it is customary to distinguish the dominant, a
syntactic construction that is the main one for the entire series and
determines its basic character. This construction usually expresses the main
and more capacious meaning, and is often distinguished by a broader and more и
universal use.

So, for example, in modern English, for the expression of target,
causal, unreal, spatial relations, various constructions are identified that
are combined into one series, called syntactic, synonymic. For example:

Synonymous series for the expression of target relations:

— you had put on
that … costume … for fun.

— you had put on
that costume for making fun.

— you had put on
that costume for make fun.

— you had put on
that costume so that you could make fun.

Synonymous series based on the expression of causal relations:

— John fell silent
not knowing what to say.

— John fell silent
as he didn’t know what to say.

— John fell silent
without knowing what to say.

In the above–mentioned synonymic series , the dominant is represented by
a subordinate clause, since this unit, having greater possibilities of
expressing information in comparison with turns, is able to act both in the
sphere of equal–subject and in the sphere of disparate sentences.

However, it is not at all synonymous with the series, it is possible to
highlight the dominant. An example of such a series in the modern English
language may serve as synonymous with a number of phrases with attributive
relations.

— The Byron poems.

— The poems by Byron.

— Byron’s poems.

— The poems of
Byron.

This synonymic series consists of constructions that convey the same
meaning — the meaning of belonging, authorship. In the synonymous correlation
of members of one series, there is a phenomenon of synonymous asymmetry, which
consists in the fact that in one particular sense a member of the series has
one synonymous “partner”, and in another. In this case, a particular
construction has multiple semantics, and therefore it can be included in
various synonymous series. This phenomenon is based on the correlation of two
plans of the language unit: the content plan and the expression plan. For the
first time this phenomenon was formulated by Karczewski S. as “the
asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign”. Formal–content asymmetry is в in в
a mobile state in the language and is the source of its changes.

The plane of expression and the plane of content interact closely and
constantly, and their asymmetry is nothing more than a manifestation of this
interaction.

The category of language asymmetry includes synonymy, polysemy, and
homonymy. Synonymy from the point of view of formal content asymmetry is the
correspondence of one content element to several expression elements. Polysemy
opposes synonymy and corresponds one element of expression to several elements
of the same conceptual content. Homonymy is a coincidence in one element of an
expression of two or more elements of different categorical content.

The problem of synonymy is, first of all, the problem of the
relationship between the form and meaning of a language sign, and the form and
meaning in a language in general. This discrepancy between the form and meaning
of a language sign manifests itself in the fact that several content components
can correspond to a single language unit, which creates a multi–meaning
language. And vice versa. One content can be expressed in different forms,
which in turn generates synonymy.

Taking into account the ambiguity of grammatical synonyms Shendels E. I.
defines synonymy as “the coincidence of semantic elements (SEM), the smallest
units of meaning, and the simplest units of content”.

The potential volume of values of a particular form is represented as a
semantic field consisting of sectors or SEMes.

Each syntactic model also has a form and syntactic meanings, so it shows
two–sidedness, between which the same phenomena of formal–content asymmetry are
observed. With these characteristics, syntactic units are combined into
syntactic fields. The semantic field refers to the grouping of syntactic models
based on the proximity of expressed or syntactic values, which represent a
generalized reflection of relations of objective reality. The possibility of
combining certain constructions into syntactic fields is due to the presence of
real semantic and functional connections between them, в which reflect the
connections between the corresponding relations of objective reality. However,
the syntactic field artificially (in theory) copies those connections between
syntactic structures that actually exist in the thinking of native speakers. To
select a syntactic field, it is necessary to select a number of syntactic units
that “differ in terms of expression, but partially or completely coincide in
terms of content, so they have common invariant semantic properties. Semantic
invariance also implies и functional proximity, close functional interaction in
a certain syntactic sphere. Syntactic models that converge in terms of content,
forming a field, serve a common part of the language.”

Syntactic fields are divided into macro– and microfields, which consist
of syntactic units of both one and several tiers that have similar syntactic
semantics, for example, the verb phrase to construct the bridge and the
substantive phrase the construction of the bridge.

The meaning of the syntactic macropole, common to all its constituents,
includes a number of more specific subdivisions, each of which is bounded from
the other and opposed to it. The presence of subvalues creates the
prerequisites for partitioning syntax of micropole on the more minor of the
microfield.

Syntactic microfields, as more specific semantic groupings within the
syntactic macropole, form different–structure models that have the same
subvalues. In microfields, constituents are distinguished, which are a group of
syntactical speech units that arose as a result of a specific implementation of
the same structural model and are united by the commonality of their syntactic
content. Constituency one and also the same of the microfield are connected
among themselves by relations of syntactic synonymy. [1] Peshkovsky A. M.
Principles and techniques of stylistic analysis and evaluation of artistic
prose. Moscow: Gosizdat, 1930. [2] Same. [3] Gvozdev A. N.
Essays on the style of the Russian language. Moscow: 1952. [4] Sukhotin V. P.
Syntactic synonymy in the modern Russian literary language. Moscow, 1960. [5] Shvedova N. Y.
Active processes in modern Russian syntax. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1966. [6] Peshkovsky A. M.
Principles and techniques of stylistic analysis and evaluation of artistic
prose. Moscow: Gosizdat, 1930. [7] Zhilin I.  M. Synonymy in the syntax of the modern
German language. Krasnodar, 1974. [8] Same. [9] Sukhotin V. P. Syntactic
synonymy in the modern Russian literary language. Moscow, 1960. [10] Zhilin I.  M. Synonymy in the syntax of the modern
German language. Krasnodar, 1974. [11] Shendels E. I . The concept of
grammatical synonymy. F. N., 1959 No. 1 [12] Maximov L. Y. On grammatical
synonymy in the Russian language. Moscow, 1966. [13] V. von Humboldt. On the
difference in the structure of human languages and its impact on the
development of the human race. History of linguistics of the XIX-XX centuries.
In essays and extracts, M., 1955. [14] Shvedova N. Y. Active
processes in modern Russian syntax. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1966. [15] Same. [16] Shendels E. I . The concept of
grammatical synonymy. F.
N., 1959 No. 1