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