Predicativeness as the main grammatical feature of a sentence

The sentence as the basic syntactic unit. Signs of an offer

The central grammatical unit of syntax is the sentence. It is the main means of expressing and communicating thoughts and performs a communicative function. According to the French syntaxist L. Tenier, a sentence is a “little drama”, which includes an action (the situation denoted by the predicate), characters (actants) and circumstances (circonstants).

To become a means of communication, a phrase must be combined into a sentence or receive the properties of a sentence. The main features of the proposal are:

a) predicativeness.

b) semantic completeness.

c) intonation completeness.

Thus, offer is a communicative syntactic unit that has predicativity and grammatical, semantic and intonation completeness.

Predicativeness as the main grammatical feature of a sentence

This is a concept that has existed in Russian syntax for a long time. In modern linguistic science there is no unity in the understanding of a sentence; there are two interpretations of this concept. According to first, predicativity is defined as semantic relations between the main members of the sentence, in this case predicativity refers to either verbosity or predication. According to the theory of Potebnya and Peshkovsky, verbality- this is the basis of any sentence; in the absence of verbs in the sentence in personal form, the verb is still thought of as a potential structural element as part of the predicate. According to this theory, main member sentences like Summer. Winter. Silence. is a nominal part of a compound predicate, since such sentences act as the equivalent of a sentence This is winter. This understanding of verbality, identified with predicativity, is based on the fact that the grammatical categories of person, tense, and mood are directly expressed in the personal forms of the verb. Predicability. The property of the predicate to denote an action was attributed to the subject in a two-part sentence. The concept of predicability follows from the fact that a sentence can have a predicate in the absence of a verb: The night (is) dark.

More widespread second understanding of predicativity, it was given by Vinogradov. The meaning and purpose of the general category of predicativity that forms a sentence is to relate the content of the sentence to reality. Thus, in linguistics there are two interpretations of predicativity, which complement each other and underlie numerous variations in interpretations of predicativity:

a) predicativity as the attribution of the content of a sentence to reality;

b) predicativity as specific relationships between the components of a sentence.

We adhere to the interpretation of the proposal given by Vinogradov.

So, predicativity- this is the relation of the content of the statement to reality. This means that a sentence denotes an event, a situation, while a word and phrase denotes an object, phenomenon, or sign. The main difference is that a sentence does not denote a single object, but a certain “state of affairs.” According to Vinogradov, general meaning predicativeness is expressed in the syntactic categories of modality, tense and person, these meanings are fused together, their complex is called modality.

Modality- this is an assessment of the statement from the point of view of reality and unreality, that is, what is being communicated is thought of as real and unreal. The modal meaning of reality and unreality is based on the verbal mood. The real is expressed by the indicative mood, the unreal by the subjunctive and imperative (possible, desired, due, required).

1.There is silence in the house. There will be silence in the house. There was silence in the house.

2.There would be silence in the house. Let there be silence in the house. If only there was silence in the house.

The first example expresses the modal meaning of reality, the second example conveys the same thing, but in terms of the possible, desired, required, i.e. in terms of the unreal.

N.Yu. Shvedov, sharing the point of view of V.V. Vinogradov about modality, delineates modality objective And subjective.

Objective modality- this is the relationship of what is being communicated to one or another plane of reality (present, past, future tense). Objective modality and syntactic tense do not exist without each other and together constitute predicativity. The meaning of objective modality is the relationship of the reported to reality: the reported situation can be presented as actually existing in time or unreal, but as desired, possible, required. For example: I rested. I'll rest soon. I would rest... I would rest! In the first two cases, the situation is presented as real, in the third and fourth cases - as possible or desirable. Unreality manifests itself as possibility, desirability, expression of will, etc. A.A. Potebnya characterized these meanings as follows: “The unreal is not a real event, but an ideal one.” Means of expressing objective modality:

– finite forms of the verb (verb in one of the moods),

– finite forms of the verb connective “to be” and other connectives (“seem”, “repute”, “become”, “become”),

– independent infinitive – often in combination with particles “would”, “not”, “if only”, “would”, etc. ( I'd like to see you again! Just don't be late!).

Objective modality can be accompanied by a subjective modality, which has its own lexical and grammatical means.

Subjective modality- This is the attitude of the speaker to what is being communicated. Subjective-modal meanings include the meanings of amplification, expressive assessment, confidence, uncertainty, agreement, disagreement, etc. so, in a sentence Of course I will pass the exam objective modality (the reality of what is being communicated in terms of the future tense) is complemented by subjective modality (the speaker’s confidence in the reality of what is being communicated). Subjective modality is created by ungrammatical indicators - introductory modal words ( maybe, probably, seems, of course, most likely and so on), modal particles ( hardly, barely, perhaps, at least, seemingly, literally, simply, directly etc.), phraseological units, as well as repetitions ( Summer is like summer), word order ( He helped me a lot! I didn’t have enough trouble with him! He wanted to go in such weather!) and intonation (And why is she happy? You’re an eccentric, oh an eccentric! Why did I come!). For example, a sentence It seems he has already arrived has the meaning of real objective modality and past tense (“arrived”). The introductory word “seems” creates the meaning of subjective modality and expresses the speaker’s uncertain assumption about the reported situation. This meaning refers to the semantic aspect - to the mode of the sentence. In sentences And well done! Here she is family life! subjective modal particles same And Here identify meanings associated with the speaker’s immediate emotional reactions, evaluative ones.

Time category(temporality) – the meaning of syntactic time, which manifests itself as the relation of what is being reported to the moment of speech or as the absence of such a relation. There are two main meanings temporality: temporary certainty and temporary uncertainty. Temporal certainty is the relationship of what is being communicated, presented as real, to the moment of speech. This meaning is expressed only grammatically - by tense forms of the verb (Vf) or copula (cop). Temporal uncertainty - lack of relation to the moment of speech, is expressed by forms of unreal moods (“ever”, “now or later”, “now, either before, or later”) . Sentences with Vf in the subjunctive and imperative moods, with the same forms of the copula, as well as with an independent infinitive, have meanings of temporal uncertainty. The meaning of incentive can be attributed to “now” and to “later” (usually the latter, since implementation is expected in the future), the meaning of desirability – to any time plan, etc. The time plan is specified in context.

For example, in the sentence He would come! there is no grammatical expression for time (although it can be expressed in other ways: now, yesterday, tomorrow), therefore it has the meaning of temporary uncertainty. Such a temporary meaning is also possible in some sentences with real modality: You can’t catch up with the day that has passed, You can’t help your grief with tears. Morphological time is the future, and syntactic time is timelessness.

Syntactic tense usually corresponds to morphological tense, but may not correspond. Under contextual conditions, temporary meanings can be expressed that are in no way correlated with the morphological meaning of the verb form. For example, the use of the syntactic present tense, expressed by the morphological form of the present tense of the verb to denote an action in the future:

Tomorrow I'm going– combining the future with the present.

I was walking down the street yesterday– present in the meaning of the past.

Syntactic and morphological moods may also not coincide at the sentence level, for example, the morphological form of the imperative mood of a word decide used to express incentive The verb in the imperative mood work better can be used to mean conditionality: If he had worked better, the brigade would have carried out the plan; and also in the meaning of obligation: It’s difficult for him: he works, he studies.

The starting point for syntactic time is the moment of speech. The discrepancy between syntactic and morphological tenses, the interaction of forms of different moods, and the possibility of their interchange are among the most expressive means of language. The verb forms of the indicative (simple future) and imperative. For example: The keys are on the large table in the sink, you know?.. So take them and use the largest key to unlock the second drawer to the right. There you will find a box, candies in paper and bring everything here(L. Tolstoy).

Let's compose sentences with real (present, past, future tenses) and unreal (possibility, desirability, incentive) modality from the original verb It's raining and personal The rain is warm.

Face category(personalization). There are different points of view regarding this category. Vinogradov considers this category an integral component of the concept of predicativity. Ilyenko shares this point of view. Shvedova excludes the category of person from predicativeness. The category of a person is the correlation of a statement with one of three persons: with the 1st or 2nd present or with the 3rd absent.

The category of a person is expressed by the personal form of the verb, personal pronoun and design features sentences (in the absence of these forms, nouns appear, which are indicators of the 3rd person). There are sentences in which the meaning of the person is specific - indefinite, generalized ( You can't be out-argued. Success is never blamed). A personal paradigm for such sentences is impossible, since a generalized-personal meaning is created only by the form of the 2nd person singular, and indefinite-personal meaning - only in the form of the 3rd person plural. Finally, there are sentences in which the person is not expressed by any means at all: the predicate does not correlate with the bearer of the predicative attribute. For example: The room is stuffy. It's stuffy. Silence. It's getting dark. When it is impossible to attribute an action to any person, impersonality is manifested: It's getting dark. It's getting light.

Thus, predicativity- This

– the relationship between the content of the sentence and reality;

– abstract grammatical meaning, which manifests itself in categories

modality, time and person.

Predicativity is a feature of a sentence that provides the ability to convey a thought.

There are different approaches to category composition:

1. The concept of predicativity includes time, modality, person (the person is the foundation, the sentence is so associated with the speaker and the addressee of speech). This is a functional approach, paying attention primarily to the semantics and actual functioning of units. Our lecturer's favorite approach.

That is, even though verbs in the subjunctive mood, for example, do not express the category of person, it is nevertheless necessarily present contextually.

2) Supporters of the formal approach believe that the category of person is not at all included in the concept of predicativity. This point of view had many supporters, because often the face is not expressed morphologically (I read, you read, he read...).

3) The last approach is that both mood and other categories - verb forms, morphological categories, do not relate to syntax.

V. Vinogradov pointed out three most important components of predicativity:

Functions as a unit verbal communication

Expresses attitude to reality

Expresses a complete thought

So, we consider modality, tense and person as components of predicativity. These components can be expressed:

Morphologically

Constructively and syntactically

Intonation-syntactic

Absolutely all sentences are predicative, even if there is not a single fully significant word. (Maybe) At the same time, the formal syntax sends them to the “grammatical ghetto,” calling them either under-sentences or quasi-sentences. But one cannot help but admit that “Maybe” meets all the requirements voiced in Vinogradov’s definition.

Predicativity in functional syntax expresses:

The relation of the content of the sentence to reality (present or not)

The speaker’s attitude to reality (I believe/don’t believe, like/dislike, sure/not sure)

The speaker’s attitude towards the content of the sentence (skeptical, detached, etc. For example: But Masha says that you are supposedly hiding something - we distance ourselves from the content, express distrust).

Relationship between subject and predicate

Spatio-temporal localization of the sentence (actual, usual, gnomic time, the term itself was introduced in the article by Bulygin and Shmelev)

Reference of noun phrases (to an object, to a class of objects)

Deixis and taxis

Subjective perspective of the utterance

The current time is now. (Where are the children? - They are sleeping)

Usual tense is the way it is accepted, the way it is, usually. (My children love candy)

Gnomic time is always. (All children are curious)

Each offer has varying degrees generality.

Sailors wash the deck. A specific object in current time.

Every morning all sailors wash the deck. Usual time, class name.

Subjective perspective unites and differentiates the hypostases of the subject and speaker, observing the world and thinking about the world (Zolotova)

Subjective perspective of a sentence - classification of subjects that we meet in the text.

Dictum (objective content, always expressed)

Mode (subjective content, our attitude to what is being communicated and the way we learn about a fact, optionally expressed)

Action, state

Speaker (subject of speech)

Destination

All this gives us a complete understanding that predicative categories are not reducible to morphology. Syntactic tense, person, modality are much richer than morphological ones.

Time in syntax:

Morphological forms of a verb can appear in a sentence in direct and figurative meanings(the present tense is a function of the past and future, the past is the function of present and future, the future is the function of past and present)

Text functions of aspectual and tense forms (aorist, imperfect, perfect)

Levels of temporal abstraction (actual, usual, gnomic time). This is not morphologized in Russian (cf.: present simple, present continuous)

Interpretation modes (speech - we operate with the real “I’m here now” and narrative)

Absolute and relative time

Linguistic and cultural aspects of time, reflected in the syntactic functioning of linguistic units (spatial and counter-movement of time, human and divine time, past and past)

She stood at the bus stop and waited. Finally, the bus came, he jumped out of the front door and gave her flowers that he had picked in the morning from a flower bed near the house.

Imperfective

Aoristiv

Definition

Predicativity is a key constitutive feature of a sentence. Predicativity contrasts a sentence with all other units within the competence of syntax, including the word. Predicativity relates information to reality and thereby forms a unit intended for independent communication.

In the series of syntactic constructions “flying bird”, “flying bird” and “bird flying” (united by a meaningful invariant, that is, having a common object of designation) - last option designation of a common object has a special functional quality - predicativeness, that is, expression state object. The word “rain,” pronounced with a special intonation, in contrast to the neutral lexical unit “rain,” is also characterized by the fact that it updates information - “[It’s] raining!” Consequently, the constructions “bird is flying”, “Rain!” are complete sentences that convey a complete message about the state of an object/subject.

In the hierarchy of features that constitute a sentence as a specific unit of language, predicativity means the highest level of abstraction. The model of the sentence itself, its abstract sample (structural diagram) has grammatical properties that make it possible to present what is being communicated in the required time frame, as well as to modify what is being communicated in the aspect of reality/irreality.

Formation of predicativity

The main grammatical means of forming predicativeness is the category of mood, with the help of which the message is:

1. appears as actually occurring in time (present, past, future), that is, it is characterized temporary certainty, or
2. is thought in terms of unreality - as possible, desired, due or required, that is, characterized temporary uncertainty.

The differentiation of these signs of the communicated (temporary certainty / uncertainty) is based on the opposition of forms indicative mood forms of unreal moods (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, motivating, obligatory).

Predicativity, as an integral grammatical feature of any sentence model and specific statements constructed according to this model, is correlated with objective modality. Forming a sentence, one of the central units of language, and representing the truth, the most significant aspect of what is being communicated, predicativity (like objective modality) is a linguistic universal.

Syntactic concepts of predicativity

The idea of ​​the essence of predicativity (like the term itself) is not unambiguous. Along with the concept of V.V. Vinogradov and his school, the term “predicativity” also denotes the property of the predicate as a syntactic member of a two-part sentence. In this sense, “predicative” means “predicate, characteristic of the predicate.”

The concept of predicativity is part of the syntactic concepts “predicative connection”, “predicative relations”, which denote the relationships connecting the subject and the predicate, as well as the relationship of the logical subject and the predicate. In this usage, predicativity is no longer conceptualized as a category of the highest level of abstraction, but as a concept associated with the level of division of the sentence. That is, in this usage, predicativity is considered not as a property that determines the model of a sentence as such (that is, a sentence in general, regardless of its composition) - but as an actual complex from which the subject and predicate must be distinguished.

Predicativity is also called the general, global logical property of any statement, as well as the property of thought, its focus on actualizing what is being communicated. This aspect of the concept of predicativity is correlated with the concept of predication relation to reality and with the concept of proposition, the main property of which is considered truth value.

See also

Notes

Literature

• Vinogradov V.V. Some problems of learning syntax simple sentence. // In the collection: Questions of linguistics, 1954, No. 1.
• Russian Grammar, vol. 2. Syntax. M., 1954.
• Steblin-Kamensky M.I. About predicativity. // In: Bulletin of Leningrad State University, 1956, No. 20.
• Admoni V. G. Binomial phrases in the interpretation of L. V. Shcherba and the problem of predicativity. // In: Scientific reports of higher education. Philological sciences. M., 1960. No. 1.
• Panfilov V. 3. The relationship between language and thinking. M., 1971.
• Lomtev T. P. Sentence and its grammatical categories. M., 1972.
• General linguistics. Internal structure of language. M., 1972.
• Katsnelson S. D. Typology of language and speech thinking. L., 1972.
• Arutyunova N.D. Sentence and its meaning. M., 1976.
• Russian grammar, vol. 2. Syntax. M., 1980.
• Stepanov Yu. S. Names. Predicates. Offers. M., 1981.
• Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1989.

Links

• Predicativity- article from the Encyclopedia of the Russian Language

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Predicativeness” is in other dictionaries:

PREDICATIVITY, predicativeness, plural. no, female (philosophy and grammar). distracted noun to predicative. Dictionary Ushakova. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

PREDICATIVITY, and, female. In grammar: category, to paradise with a whole complex of formal syntactic means correlates the message with one or another time plane of reality. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

Noun, number of synonyms: 2 ability to predict (1) ability to anticipate (1) ... Dictionary of synonyms

PREDICATIVITY- (from Latin praedicatum - predicate). The relation of the statement to reality established by the speaker and expressed by linguistic means. The grammatical means of expressing P. in a sentence are the categories of time, number and modality... New dictionary methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)

predicativity- a characteristic of internal speech, expressed by the absence in this speech of words representing the subject (subject), but the presence only of words related to the predicate (predicate). Dictionary practical psychologist. M.: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998 ... Great psychological encyclopedia

Predicativity- Predicativity is a syntactic category that determines the functional specificity of the basic unit of sentence syntax; the key constitutive feature of a sentence, relating information to reality and thereby forming a unit,... ... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary

predicativity- Semantic-syntactic and communicative property of a sentence. Predicativity has two sides: 1) formally logical; 2) modally semantic. Sometimes the first property is called predicativity, the second – modality. Predicativeness... ... Dictionary linguistic terms T.V. Foal

AND; and. Log., lingu. Presence of a predicate. Category of predicativity. Ways of expressing predicativity. * * * predicativity is a syntactic category that forms a sentence; relates the content of a sentence to reality and thereby makes it... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary

Expression by linguistic means of the relationship between the content of what is being expressed and reality as the basis of a sentence. The grammatical means of expressing predicativeness are the category of time (all phenomena of activity occur in time,... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms

Books

• Predicativeness of a noun. Elimination of the subject, A. A. Potebnya. Readers are invited to a book by the outstanding Russian philologist A. A. Potebnya, dedicated to changing the meaning and replacing a noun in a sentence. In the article “Predicativeness…

PREDICATIVITY is a syntactic category that determines the functional specificity of the basic unit of syntax - the sentence; the key constitutive feature of a sentence, relating information to reality and thereby forming a unit intended for communication; a category that contrasts a sentence with all other units within the purview of syntax. In the series of syntactic constructions that have a common object of designation (combined contain an invariant), for example. “flying bird”, “bird flying” and “bird flying”, the latter way of designating this object has a special functional quality - P.
Expressing an updated relationship to reality, P. distinguishes a sentence from such a unit of language as a word: the sentence “Rain!” with special intonation, in contrast to lexical. The unit “rain” is characterized by the fact that it is based on an abstract pattern that has the potential ability to relate information to the plane of the present, past or future tense (“Rain!” - “It was raining” - “It will rain”).
In the hierarchy of features that constitute a sentence as a specific unit of language, P. is a sign of the highest level of abstraction. The model of the sentence itself, its abstract sample (structural diagram) has such grammatical characteristics. properties that make it possible to present what is being communicated in one time or another, as well as to modify what is being communicated in the aspect of reality/irreality. The main means of P. formation is the category of mood, with the help of which the communicated appears as actually occurring in time (present, past or future), that is, it is characterized by temporal certainty, or is thought of in terms of unreality - as possible, desired, due or required, i.e., characterized by temporary uncertainty. The differentiation of these signs of the communicated (temporary certainty / uncertainty) is based on the opposition of expressive forms, moods to forms of unreal moods (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, motivating, obligatory).
P., as an integral grammatical. a sign of any model of a sentence and specific statements constructed according to this model is correlated with objective modality. Forming one of the central units of language and representing the most significant - truth - aspect of the communicated, P. (like objective modality) is a linguistic universal.
The idea of ​​the essence of P. (like the term itself) is not unambiguous. Along with the concept of V.V. Vinogradov (“Some problems of studying the syntax of a simple sentence”, 1954) and his school (“Grammar of the Russian language”, vol. 2, 1954; “Russian grammar”, 1980; see Vinogradov school) the term “ P." also denote the property of the predicate as snntaxic. member of a two-part sentence (predicative means “predicate, characteristic of the predicate”). The concept of P. is part of the syntactic. concepts “predicative connection”, “predicative relations”, which denote relations connecting the subject and predicate, as well as logical relations. subject and predicate; in this use, P. is no longer conceptualized as a category of the highest level of abstraction (inherent in the model of a sentence as such, a sentence in general, regardless of its composition), but as a concept associated with the level of division of a sentence, i.e., with such sentences, in which The subject and predicate can be distinguished.
P. is also called general, global logical. the property of any statement, as well as the property of thought, its focus on actualizing what is being communicated. This aspect of the concept of predication is correlated with the concept of predication, the main property of which is considered to be related to reality, and with the concept of proposition, it is distinguished, the characteristic of which is considered to be truth value.

Predication is the act of connecting independent objects of thought, expressed in independent words, to display and interpret in language an event, a situation of reality.

Predication involves attributing a certain attribute to an object (subject): S is R. This feature is called predicative, or predicate (from the late Latin praedicatum- "said"). In many languages, this term was used to designate the main member of a sentence (in Russian, the term “predicate” is a calque from Latin praedicatum). However, it would be a mistake to identify parts of the sentence connected by relationship predication, with subject and predicate. Subject and predicate my- although this is the most common, it is still only one of possible ways predication expressions. Let's compare personal and impersonal sentences: I I miss And I'm bored; these sentences have the same subject (I, me) and the same predicate (bored, bored) But V in the first sentence they are expressed V form of subject and predicate, and in the second, so-called An “impersonal” sentence has no subject. At identity predication has place difference in its grammatical interpretation: in an impersonal sentence the subject is expressed by the dative case of the personal pronoun, that is, the case of the addressee, as a result of which boredom is interpreted as a certain force that has taken possession of the subject from the outside; in a personal sentence, boredom is a purely internal state of the person. Subject and predicate can do not match and with theme and rheme. There are cases when both the subject and the predicate relate to the topic of the sentence, while the rheme turns out to be a secondary member; if, for example, a proposal Vasya goes to school is the answer to the question Where is Vasya going? then its actual division will be like this: Vasya is coming(T) to school(R).

Predicates are heterogeneous. They differ: 1) taxonomic predicates - predicates indicating the inclusion of an object in a class: This flower is a lily of the valley. This tree is oak; 2) characterizing predicates - predicates indicating stable or transitory, proper or improper, dynamic or static characteristics of the subject: He is sick. He's tired. Harun ran faster than a deer (Lermontov); 3) relational predicates - predicates indicating the relationship of one substance to another: Anna Ivanovna - Tanya’s grandmother; a) predicates of temporal and spatial localization: Classes - in the evening. Home is still far away. Sergei is at home. As a result of predication, a certain and no longer blindly creeping semantic content is assigned to the “blindly creeping” object.

Any sentence, in order to become an actualized unit of speech - an utterance, must characterize the fact being described in relation to the time of communication and the position of the speaker, and the fact can be qualified as real or unreal; cf., for example, sentences with similar lexical content: They brought the mail. - I wish the mail would come soon. - Let them bring the mail! Therefore, the most important feature of a sentence as a syntactic unit is predicativity. According to V.V. Vinogradov, predicativity is the relation of the expressed content to real reality, grammatically expressed in the categories (syntactic, and not just morphological) of modality (mood), tense and linden. Thus, predicativity is the actualization of what is being communicated, the establishment of its connection with reality and its interpretation. This creates a unit that can actively participate in communication and express the message. It does not matter at all whether this connection is true or false. Thus, the sentence It is snowing contains information related to the present tense and interpreted by the speaker as true and real; however, the information in the sentence It is raining fish is comprehended and interpreted in the same way.

Predicativity is expressed in the syntactic categories of mood, tense and person. Thus, the message I am writing to you is interpreted as actually occurring in the present tense and associated with the action of the speaker himself. The sentence Help me to need no aid from men - Help me not to need the help of people (Kipling) expresses the speaker’s motivation, which is not capable of being actualized in a certain time frame. Predicativity is thus the grammatical expression of predication. If predication (in the broad sense) establishes a connection between an object and a feature, then predication establishes a connection between what is communicated in a sentence and the situation in being itself. In other words, it is a complex of modal-temporal meanings that correlate the statement with the situation of existence. The most important form of expression of predication is the relationship between the subject, indicating the subject of speech - thought, and the predicate, naming the predicative attribute. The combination of subject and predicate represents the predicative minimum of a sentence.

The construction He solved a difficult problem is a sentence, and the construction His solution to a difficult problem is not a sentence. Why? It's all about predication. A sentence has predicativity, but a non-sentence does not.

The concept of predicativity is not mysterious if we approach it as a grammatical form underlying a sentence. Grammatical form- this is the unity of grammatical meaning and the means of its expression (see grammatical form). The grammatical meaning of predicativeness is an attitude to reality. He solved the problem - he talks about what is real. Solve the problem\ The action “solve the problem” is required, it must exist, it is not yet a reality. As you can see, the attitude to reality is conveyed using tense and mood. The main means of expressing predicativity is a verb in the conjugated form: decided, decide, etc. It is precisely such verbs that convey tense and mood, therefore, they are good transmitters of the meaning of predicativity.
Construction His solution to a difficult problem does not contain the meaning of predicativity. There is no verb - a means of conveying this meaning.
Note, however, that the construction His solution to a difficult problem can also become a sentence if it is the title of the corresponding text. In this case, this construction is a predicate to a hidden subject; let's compare: What follows is his solution to a difficult problem. There is a zero verb connective here (see Zero units in language).
Now compare the sentences: (1) The cloud was large and gloomy, (2) The cloud, large and gloomy, was slowly approaching the city, (3) The large and gloomy cloud was slowly approaching the city.
The adjectives big and gloomy in all three sentences are dependent on the same member of the sentence - the subject cloud. Nevertheless, the roles of these adjectives in these sentences are different. What?
In (1) adjectives are the nominal part of the predicate; it is usually in the first roles in the sentence together with the subject: in order to express the relationship between the subject and the predicate, as a rule, a sentence is conceived; Without the predicate as a carrier of predicativeness there can be no sentence at all.
In (3), adjectives play a far less important role; the sentence is not designed at all to communicate the characteristics of the subject; the adjectives in this sentence have nothing to do with the expression of predicativeness (predicative categories of tense and mood). Without these adjectives, the sentence will not only not collapse, but even its meaning will not suffer much.
In (2), although adjectives are not as important as in (1), they are still significantly more important than in (3). Among all other non-main (minor) members of the sentence, these definitions - adjectives - are especially highlighted. In terms of their significance, they occupy an intermediate position between the predicate, which, together with the subject, is the most significant member of the sentence, and the usual minor member of the sentence.
The most significant relationships in a sentence - between the subject and the predicate - are called predicative. Relations like those between adjectives and nouns in a sentence like (2) are called semi-predicative. Relations entered into by ordinary ones in a sentence minor members sentences, in their significance, are characterized as non-predicative.

Nikitina

Question 10 Phoneme and phoneme variants. According to Khabirov's manual

We call different sounds in which the same phoneme is realized variants of one phoneme, allophones, variations or shades of the phoneme (according to L.V. Shcherba). The latter appear in the strong position of the phoneme, i.e. in a stressed position adjacent to soft consonants, for example, a variation of the phoneme /a/ in a word five. Among the shades of one phoneme, there is one, which is the most typical; it is pronounced in an isolated form, that is, in the most independent position (from neighboring sounds). Such a position is usually the shell of a separate word and, moreover, under stress, for example, in the words (from worst to best position): five, five, pa, a. A monophonemic word also carries out a constitutive ( building material) and distinctive function. It is often impossible to find the shell of a single word like the one above A. In this case, you need to find a position in the word in which the most phonemes differ (cf. dol-dul-dal-dol): here the phonemes /o/, /u/, /a/, /e/ are distinguished under stress in the same phonetic environment). Position is a condition for the implementation of a phoneme in speech, its position in a word in relation to stress, another phoneme, and the structure of the word as a whole. Depending on whether the phoneme “retains” or “loses” its “face,” strong and weak positions are distinguished. The strong position is the position of distinguishing phonemes, i.e. the position in which the largest number of units differs. The phoneme appears here in its basic form, which allows it to best perform its functions. For vowels of the Russian language, this is the position under stress (at the beginning of the word before a hard consonant, in the middle - between hard consonants and at the end after hard consonants, cf. arch, barka, hand). For voiceless/voiced consonants - position before all vowels (cf. [t]om - [d]om), before sonorants (cf. [p]lesk - [b]lesk) and in, if it is followed by a vowel or sonorant ( cf. [t]vorets - [d]vorets, o[t]gate - on [d]gate). For hard/soft consonants - the position of the end of the word (cf. bra[t] - bra[t"]), before all vowels except e (cf. [m]al - [m"]al, for front-lingual consonants - before back-lingual (cf. ba-[n]ka - ba[n"]ka, and labial (cf. i[z]ba - re[z"]ba), for dental - in front of hard teeth (cf. ko[ns]ky - yu[n"s]kiy), and for phonemes /l - l"/ - before all consonants (cf. vo/l/na - vo/l"]na), etc.

A weak position is a position of non-discrimination of phonemes, i.e. a position in which a smaller number of units differs than in a strong position, since phonemes have limited opportunities to perform its distinctive function (cf. [sGma]: which phoneme is realized in the sound [G] - /o/ or /a/?) In this position there is a coincidence of two or more phonemes in one sound (either as a result of reduction or under influence of neighboring sounds), i.e. their phonological opposition is neutralized.

Indeed, in certain cases, phonemes may lose any of their distinctive features, in which case the opposition is neutralized (contextually determined destruction of the opposition), for example, meadow /luk/ - onion /luk/ or phonemes /з/ and /с/ differ in positions before the vowel in the words goats and braids, but are neutralized at the end of the word - ko[s], coinciding in one sound. Trubetskoy calls this phoneme, appearing in a weak position and having common features of two phonemes (g - k, z - s) in the position of neutralization, archiphoneme.

Thus, in the opposition /g-k/, upon neutralization, an archiphoneme is obtained, the content of which is characterized by the signs of closure and back-lingualism, plus a correlation sign - voicing. A phoneme that has an additional feature that distinguishes it from another member of the opposition is called marked, for example, the phoneme /g/, unlike /k/, has an additional feature - voicing.

Representatives of the IFS, instead of the concept of archiphoneme, introduced the concept of hyperphoneme, which appears only in an isolated weak position (harness, dispute, us). Both members of the opposition under neutralization conditions are considered as one hyperphoneme. This is a complex unit that combines two or more phonemes that are not opposed in a given position and choice between which is not possible. For example, the first vowel in the word cup represents the hyperphoneme /o/a/ and it is impossible to determine whether it is /o/ or /a/, since it is impossible to translate this vowel into a strong position (see also dog, pea). Since Trubetskoy believed that in phonology the main role belongs to meaningful oppositions, he classified the ones he identified various types oppositions of phonemes in the language system, highlighting one-dimensional and multidimensional, isolated and proportional oppositions, within which a number of subtypes of these oppositions are distinguished. In this regard, Trubetskoy’s definition of a phoneme takes on the following form: a phoneme is the shortest part of a phonological opposition. Oppositions can be classified by the number of members: they can be private (presence or absence of DP): m/b and equivalent,

binary (binary) - b/n, etc. Ternary (ternary) oppositions b/d/g (bam/dam/gam) – labial/forelingual/posteriorlingual are distinguished by the active organ. Oppositions can be proportional or isolated. An opposition is called proportional if the relationship between its members is proportional to the relationship between the members of another or other oppositions, that is, if this relationship is repeated in other oppositions. Thus, in the Russian language the relation b/b’, i.e. palatalized: non-palatalized is repeated in pairs p/p’, v/v’, d/d’, etc.; the b/p ratio is repeated in pairs d/t, s/c...; the ratio b/d/g is repeated in triplets p/t/k, b’/d’/g’, etc. Where there is no proportionality, the opposition finds itself isolated. For example, in German l/r, i.e. side/trembling (German: Leise “quiet”: Reise “ride”). But in Russian, l/r is not an isolated opposition, since there is l’/r’ (salt/soryu). If phonemes in one opposition are related to each other in the same way as other phonemes in another opposition, then both oppositions form a correlation. An example of a correlation in the Russian language would be the voicing-voicelessness correlation: [p] ~ [b] = [t] ~ [d] = [s] ~ [z] = [f] ~ [v] =

[w] ~ [f] = [k] ~ [g], by hardness-softness: [p] ~ [p’] = [b] ~ [b’] ... etc. Correlations provide clearly visible groupings of phonemes to reduce phonemes into a system. Accordingly, based on the above correlations, the phonological system distinguishes subclasses of voiced and voiceless phonemes, hard and soft phonemes.

Despite the fact that the phoneme is the shortest unit of language, it is a complex and voluminous entity, which is interpreted ambiguously in different linguistic schools, depending on which aspect or function of the phoneme is brought to the fore by linguists. Thus, within the framework of the Moscow phonological school, the phoneme is considered as a semantically distinctive component or part of a morpheme, and by representatives of the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) phonological school - as an independent unit of language that has a direct connection with meaning. These initial differences in the construction of phonological theory lead to significant fundamental differences both in the interpretation of the nature, properties and function of phonemes, and in the methods of identifying and inventorying these language units.

In American descriptive linguistics, a phoneme is considered a class of allophones. The distinctive function of phonemes and the presence of significant features by which one phoneme is contrasted with others is also noted by American linguists. Despite different definition The essence of the phoneme in the American and Prague schools of structuralism is united by their consideration of the phoneme as a functional unit, the content of which is a set of certain phonological features that distinguish this phoneme from other members of the opposition, and the main function of the phoneme is considered to be distinctive. By comparing the phonological systems of two languages ​​for the purpose of determining typological similarities or differences, we can easily verify that in a number of cases they turn out to be different. This concerns the composition, quality and quantity of phonemes present in them. Let's consider in comparatively main features of the phonological systems of English and Russian languages.

Zakirova

Ticket 11. Simple and compound forms of words.