Predicativity as the main grammatical feature of a sentence

The sentence as the basic syntactic unit. Offer signs

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

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) predictability.

b) semantic completeness.

c) intonation completeness.

In this way, sentence is a communicative syntactic unit that has predicativity and grammatical, semantic and intonational completeness.

Predicativity 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 understanding the sentence, there are two interpretations of this concept. According to first, predicativity is defined as semantic relations between the main members of a sentence, in this case predicativity refers either to verbality or to predicate. According to the theory of Potebnya and Peshkovsky, verbality- this is the basis of any sentence, in the absence of verbs in a sentence in a personal form, the verb is still thought of as a potential structural element in the composition of the predicate. According to this theory, the main member of sentences like Summer. Winter. Silence. is the nominal part of the compound predicate, since such sentences act as the equivalent of the sentence This is winter. Such an understanding of verbality, identified with predicativity, is based on the fact that grammatical categories of person, tense, and mood are directly expressed in the personal forms of the verb. Predictability. The property of the predicate to designate an action was attributed to the subject in a two-part sentence. The concept of predicate follows from the fact that a sentence can contain a predicate in the absence of a verb: The night (is) dark.

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

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

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

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

So, predicativity 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 a phrase denote an object, phenomenon, sign. The main difference is that the sentence refers not to a single object, but to some "state of affairs". According to Vinogradov, the general meaning of predicativity is expressed in the syntactic categories of modality, tense and person, these meanings are merged 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, the reported is thought of as real and unreal. The modal meaning of reality and unreality is based on the verb 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 were silence in the house.

In the first example, the modal meaning of reality is expressed; in the second example, the same thing is reported, but in terms of the possible, desired, required, i.e., in terms of the unreal.

N.Yu. Shvedova, sharing the point of view of V.V. Vinogradov about modality, differentiates modality objective and subjective.

Objective modality- this is the relation of the reported to one or another plan of reality (present, past, future tense). Objective modality and syntactic tense do not exist without each other and together constitute predicativity. The value of objective modality is the relation 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 will 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. Irreality manifests itself as an opportunity, desirability, will, etc. A.A. Potebnya characterized these meanings in the following way: “The surreal is not a real event, but an ideal one.” Means of expressing objective modality:

- finite forms of the verb (a verb in one of the moods),

- finite forms of the verb connective "to be" and other connectives ("seem", "be known", "become", "become"),

- an independent infinitive - often in combination with particles “would”, “not”, “if only”, “that would be”, etc. ( See you again! Just don't be late!).

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

Subjective modality is the relation of the speaker to the reported. The subjective-modal values ​​include the values ​​of reinforcement, expressive evaluation, confidence, uncertainty, agreement, disagreement, etc. so, in the sentence Of course I will pass the exam objective modality (the reality of what is reported in terms of the future tense) is complemented by subjective modality (the speaker’s confidence in the reality of what is being reported). Subjective modality is created by non-grammatical indicators - introductory modal words ( maybe, probably, it seems, of course, most likely etc.), modal particles ( hardly, scarcely, hardly, 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 much trouble with him! Hunt him (was) to go in such weather!) and intonation (And why does she rejoice! An eccentric, well, an eccentric! Why did I come!). For example, a proposal Looks like he's already arrived. has the meaning of a real objective modality and the past tense (“arrived”). The introductory word "seems" creates the meaning of subjective modality, expresses the speaker's uncertain assumption about the reported situation. This meaning refers to the semantic aspect - to the mode of the sentence. In offers And well done! Here it is, family life! subjective modal particles same and here allocate meanings associated with the speaker's immediate emotional reactions, evaluative characterizing.

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

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

Syntactic tense usually corresponds to morphological tense, but may not. Under the conditions of the context, such 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 indicate an action in the future:

Tomorrow I'm going- blending the future with the present.

I'm walking down the street yesterday- the present in the sense 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 motivation The imperative verb work better can be used in a conditional sense: Had he worked better, the brigade would have carried out the plan; and also in the sense of duty: It is difficult for him: he and work, he and study.

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

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

Person category(personalization). There are different points of view regarding this category. Vinogradov considers this category an integral component of the concept of predicativity. This point of view is shared by Ilyenko. Shvedova excludes the category of a person from the composition of predicativity. The category of a person is the correlation of an utterance 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 the constructive features of the sentence (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 will not be outdone. Success is never blamed). A personal paradigm for such sentences is impossible, since the generalized personal meaning is created only by the 2 person singular form, and the indefinite personal meaning is created only by the 3 person plural form. Finally, there are sentences in which the person is not expressed by any means at all: the predicate does not correlate with the carrier of the predicative attribute. For example: The room is stuffy. Stuffiness. Silence. It's getting dark. If it is impossible to attribute the action to any person, impersonality is manifested: It's evening. It's getting light.

In this way, predicativity- this is

- the relation of the content of the proposal to reality;

- abstract grammatical meaning, which manifests itself in categories

modality, time and face.

Predication is an act of connecting independent objects of thought, expressed by independent words, for displaying and interpreting in the language of an event, a situation of reality.

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

Predicates are heterogeneous. There are: 1) taxonomic predicates - predicates indicating the entry of an object into a class: This flower is a lily of the valley. This tree is an oak; 2) characterizing predicates - predicates that indicate stable or transient, own or improper, dynamic or static signs of the subject: He is sick. He is tired. Harun ran faster than a doe (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 at home. As a result of predication, a “blindly creeping” object is assigned a definite and no longer blindly creeping semantic content.

Any sentence, in order to become an actualized unit of speech - an utterance, must characterize the described fact in relation to the time of the message and the position of the speaker, and the fact can be qualified as real or unreal; compare, for example, sentences with similar lexical content: Brought mail. - Bring the mail as soon as possible. - 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 reality, grammatically expressed in the categories (syntactic, and not just morphological) of modality (mood), tense and lime. Thus, predicativity is the actualization of the reported, the establishment of its connection with reality and its interpretation. This creates a unit capable of actively participating in communication and expressing the message. It does not matter at all whether this relationship is true or false. Thus, the sentence It is snowing contains information relating to the present time and comprehended by the speaker as true and real; however, the information in the sentence It's raining fish is comprehended and interpreted in exactly 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 taking place in the present tense and associated with the action of the speaker himself. In the sentence Help me to need no aid from men - Help me not to need the help of people (Kipling), the speaker's motivation is expressed, which is not able to be actualized in a certain time frame. Predicativity is thus the grammatical expression of predication. If predication (in a broad sense) establishes a connection between an object and a feature, then predicativity establishes a connection between what is reported in the 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 being. The most important form of expression of predication is the relationship between the subject, indicating the subject of speech - thoughts, and the predicate, naming the predicative feature. The combination of subject and predicate is the predicative minimum of the sentence.

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

The concept of predicativity will not be mysterious if you approach it as a grammatical form underlying the sentence. The grammatical form is the unity of the grammatical meaning and the means of its expression (see grammatical form). The grammatical meaning of predicativity is the relation to reality. He solved the problem - it is said about what is real. Solve the problem \ The action "solve the problem" is required, it must be, it is not yet a reality. As you can see, the attitude to reality is conveyed with the help of time and inclination. The main means of expressing predicativity is a verb in 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. No verb is a means of conveying this meaning.
Note, however, that the construction of His solution to a difficult problem can also become a proposal if it is the title to the corresponding text. In this case, this construction is a predicate to a hidden subject; compare: The following is his solution to a difficult problem. There is a zero verb connective here (see Zero units in the language).
Now let's compare the sentences: (1) The cloud was big and gloomy, (2) The cloud, big and gloomy, was slowly approaching the city, (3) The big and gloomy cloud was slowly approaching the city.
The adjectives large 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. In 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 a predicate as a carrier of predicativity, there can be no sentence at all.
In (3), adjectives play a far less important role, the sentence is not intended at all to report the features of the subject, the adjectives in this sentence have nothing to do with the expression of predicativity (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) adjectives, although not as important as in (1), are still significantly more important than in (3). Among all other non-main (secondary) members of the sentence, these definitions - adjectives are highlighted. In 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 secondary 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. The relations that the ordinary secondary members of the sentence enter into in the sentence are characterized by their significance as non-predicative.

Nikitin

Question 10 Phoneme and phoneme variants. By the allowance of Khabirov

We call various sounds in which the same phoneme is realized variants of one phoneme, allophones, variations or shades of a phoneme (according to L.V. Shcherba). The latter appear in the strong position of the phoneme, i.e. in a stressed position next to soft consonants, for example, a variation of the phoneme /a/ in a word five. Among the shades of one phoneme, there is one that 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 a shell of a single word and, moreover, under stress, for example, in words (from worst to best position): five, five, pa, ah. A one-phonemic word performs both a constitutive (building material) and a 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 would differ (cf. dol-dul-dal-del): here, under stress in the same phonetic environment, the phonemes /o/, /u/, /a/, /e/ are distinguished). Position is a condition for the implementation of a phoneme in speech, its position in a word in relation to stress, another phoneme, the structure of the word as a whole. Depending on whether the phoneme “retains” or “loses” its “face”, a strong and weak position is distinguished. A strong position is a position of distinguishing phonemes, i.e. the position at which the greatest number of units differs. The phoneme appears here in its basic form, which allows it to perform its functions in the best possible way. For Russian vowels, this is a stressed position (at the beginning of a word before a hard consonant, in the middle - between hard consonants and at the end after hard consonants, cf. arch, barka, hand). For deaf / voiced consonants - the position before all vowels (cf. [t] ohm - [d] ohm), before sonorants (cf. [n] lesk - [b] lesk) and in if it is followed by a vowel or sonorant ( compare [t] palace - [d] palace, o [t] gate - to [d] gate). For hard / soft consonants - the position of the end of the word (cf. bra [t] - bra [t "]), before all vowels, except for e (cf. [m] al - [m"] al, for front-lingual consonants - before back-lingual (cf. ba-[n] ka - ba [n "] ka, and labial (cf. and [h] ba - re [h "] ba), for dental - in front of hard teeth (cf. ko [ns] cue - ju [n "s] cue), and for phonemes /l - l "/ - before all consonants (cf. in / l / on - in / l "] on), etc.

Weak position is the position of non-distinguishing phonemes, i.e. a position in which fewer units are distinguished than in a strong position, since phonemes have limited opportunities to perform their distinctive function (cf. [cGma]: which phoneme is realized in the sound [G] - /o/ or /a/?) In this position, two or more phonemes coincide in one sound (either as a result of reduction or under the influence of neighboring sounds), i.e. their phonological opposition is neutralized.

Indeed, in certain cases, phonemes may lose any of their distinguishing features, in which case the opposition is neutralized (contextually determined destruction of the opposition), for example, meadow / bow / - bow / bow / 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, having common features of two phonemes (r - k, s - s) in the position of neutralization archi phoneme.

Thus, in the opposition /г-к/, upon neutralization, an archiphoneme is obtained, the content of which is characterized by the signs of stop and back language, plus the sign of correlation - voicedness. A phoneme that has an additional feature that distinguishes it from another member of the opposition is called marked, for example, the phoneme /g/, in contrast to /k/, has an additional feature - voicedness.

Instead of the concept of an archphoneme, representatives of the IPF introduced the concept of a hyperphoneme that appears only in an isolated weak position (harness, dispute, us). Both members of the opposition under conditions of neutralization 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 the 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 /o/ this 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 different types of oppositions of phonemes identified by him 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 privative (presence-absence of DP): m / b and equipotent,

binary (binary) - b / n, etc. Ternary (ternary) oppositions b / d / g (bam / dam / gam) - labial / anterior lingual / posterior lingual 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. So, in Russian, the relation b / b ', i.e. palatalized: non-palatalized is repeated in pairs n / n ', in / in ', d / d ', etc .; the ratio of b / n 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 is isolated. For example, in German, l / r, i.e. lateral / trembling (German Leise "quietly": Reise "trip"). But in Russian, l / r is not an isolated opposition, because there is l '/ r ' (salt / sorry). If phonemes in one opposition correlate with each other in the same way as other phonemes in another opposition, then both oppositions form a correlation. An example of a correlation in Russian can be a correlation in voiced-deafness: [n] ~ [b] = [t] ~ [d] = [s] ~ [h] = [f] ~ [v] =

[w] ~ [g] = [k] ~ [g], according to hardness-softness: [n] ~ [n ’] = [b] ~ [b ’] ... etc. Correlations give clearly manifested groupings of phonemes to bring phonemes into a system. Accordingly, based on the above correlations, subclasses of voiced and deaf phonemes, hard and soft phonemes are distinguished in the phonological system.

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

In American descriptive linguistics, the phoneme is considered as a class of allophones. The distinctive function of phonemes and the presence of significant features by which one phoneme is opposed to others is also noted by American linguists. Despite the different definition of the essence of the phoneme in the American and Prague schools of structuralism, they are united by the 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. Comparing the phonological systems of two languages ​​for the purposes of determining typological similarity or difference, 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 they contain. Let us consider in comparative terms the main features of the phonological systems of the English and Russian languages.

Zakirova

Ticket 11. Simple and compound forms of the word.

The meaning of the word PREDICATIVE in the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary

PREDICATIVITY

- a syntactic category that determines the functional specifics of the main unit of syntax - a sentence; the key constitutive feature of the sentence, relating information to reality and thereby forming a unit intended for communication; a category that opposes the sentence to all other units related to the competence of syntax. In a series of syntactic constructions that have a common object of designation (combined contain, invariant), e.g. “flying bird”, “bird flight” and “bird flies”, the last way of designating this object has a special functional quality - P. Expressing an actualized relation to reality, P. distinguishes the sentence from such a unit of language as the word: the sentence “Rain!” with individuals intonation, in contrast to lexic. units "rain", is characterized by the fact that it is based on an abstract sample that has the potential ability to refer information to the plan of the present, past or future time ("Rain!" - "It was raining" - "It will rain"). In the hierarchy of signs constituting the sentence as a singular. unit of language, P. is a sign of the highest level of abstraction. The very model of the sentence, its abstract sample (structural diagram) has such grammatical. properties that make it possible to present what is reported in one or another temporal plan, as well as modify what is reported in the aspect of reality / unreality. The main means of forming P. is the category of inclination, with the help of which the reported appears as actually being realized in time (present, past or future), that is, it is characterized by temporal certainty, or it is conceived in terms of irreality - as possible, desired, due or required, i.e., characterized by temporal uncertainty. The differentiation of these signs of the reported (temporal certainty / uncertainty) is based on the opposition of the forms of express, inclinations to the forms of irreal inclinations (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, prompting, obligatory). P., as an integral grammatical. a sign of any model of a sentence and specific statements built on this model, is correlated with an objective modality. Forming one of the centers, units of the language and representing the most significant - truth - aspect of the reported, the P. (as well as the objective modality) is a linguistic universal. The idea of ​​the essence of P. (as well as 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) by the term "P." also denote the property of the predicate as snntaksich. member of a two-part sentence (predicative means "predicative, characteristic of the predicate"). The concept of P. is part of the syntax. the concepts of "predicative connection", "predicative relations", which denote relations that connect the subject and the predicate, as well as the relationship of logical. subject and predicate; in this use, P. is no longer understood as a category of the highest level of abstraction (inherent in the sentence model as such, in the sentence in general, regardless of its composition), but as a concept associated with the level of division of the sentence, i.e., with such sentences, in which ryh, the subject and the predicate can be distinguished. P. is also called the general, global logical. a property of any utterance, as well as a property of thought, its focus on the actualization of what is communicated. This aspect of the concept of P. is correlative with the concept of predication, the main property of which is considered to be related to reality, and with the concept of proposition, it distinguishes, a feature of which is the truth value. O Vinogradov VV. Some problems of studying the syntax of a simple sentence. VYA, 1954. No. 1; Russian grammar. language, v. 2. Syntax. M., 1954; S t e b-lin-Kamensky M. I. About predicativity. Bulletin of Leningrad State University, 1956. Jsfe 20; Admoni V. G., Two-term phrases in the interpretation of L. V. Shcherba and the problem of predicativity. NDVSH. FN. 1960. H > 1; Panfilov V. 3. The relationship between language and thinking. M., 1971; Lomtev T. P .. The sentence and its grammar. categories. M., 1972; General language-knowledge. Int. language structure, M., 1972; Katsnel'son SD. Typology of language and speech thinking. L., 1972; Arutyunova N. D. Proposal and its meaning. M., 1976; Rus. grammar, vol. 2. Syntax. M.. 1980; Stepanov Yu. S Names. Predicates. Offers. M., 1981. M. V. Lyapon.

Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. 2012

See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what is PREDICATIVE in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

• PREDICATIVITY
  
• PREDICATIVITY
  a syntactic category that forms a sentence; relates the content of the sentence to reality and thereby makes it a unit of the message (statement). P. is ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  , -i, f. In grammar: a category, which by a whole complex of formal syntactic means correlates a message with one or another temporal plan ...
• PREDICATIVITY
  PREDICATIVE, syntactical. the category that forms the offer; relates the content of the sentence to reality and thereby makes it a unit ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Full accentuated paradigm according to Zaliznyak:
  predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, predicate, ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms:
  Expression by linguistic means of the relationship of the content of what is being expressed to reality as the basis of the sentence. The grammatical, means of expressing predicativity are the category of time (all phenomena ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language Efremova:
  and. A category that, by a whole complex of formal syntactic means, correlates a message with one or another temporal plan of reality (in ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Dictionary of the Russian Language Lopatin:
  predicativeness, ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Complete Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language:
  predictability...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Spelling Dictionary:
  predicativeness, ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Modern Explanatory Dictionary, TSB:
  a syntactic category that forms a sentence; relates the content of the sentence to reality and thereby makes it a unit ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ushakov:
  predicativity, pl. no, w. (philosophical and grammatical). Distraction noun to …
• PREDICATIVITY in the Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova:
  predicativity A category that, by a whole complex of formal syntactic means, correlates a message with one or another temporal plan of reality (in ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the New Dictionary of the Russian Language Efremova:
  and. A category that, by a whole complex of formal syntactic means, correlates a message with a certain temporal plan of reality (in ...
• PREDICATIVITY in the Big Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language:
  and. A category that, by a whole complex of formal syntactic means, correlates a message with a certain temporal plan of reality (in linguistics) ...
• STYLISTICS LINGUISTIC in the Literary Encyclopedia:
  1. Definition of the concept. Determination of the volume and content of S. belongs to the most controversial issues that have not received a final resolution. One of …
• PHRASE in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  the simplest non-predicative (see Predicative), unlike a sentence, a unit of speech, which is formed on the basis of a subordinate relationship (coordination, control, adjacency) of two ...
• MEMBERS OF THE OFFER in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  sentences, words or phrases that perform a certain semantic-syntactic function in a sentence. Double classification of words - according to morphological features (parts of speech) and ...
• SENTENCE (SYNTAX CATEGORY) in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  one of the main categories of syntax, opposed to the word and phrase in terms of forms, meaning and functions. In a broad sense, it is…
• VERB in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  part of speech denoting an action or state and used in a sentence mainly as a predicate. The grammatical meaning of an action or state...
• DEFINITION OF GRAM. in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  O. or an attribute is usually called such a part of a sentence that contains indications of the quality or property of an object whose name is expressed ...
• PHRASE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  PHRASE, the simplest non-predicative (see. Predicativity), unlike a sentence, a unit of speech, which is formed on the basis of subordinates. communication (coordination, management, ...
• REMA in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  REM (from the Greek rh; ma - word, saying, lit. - said) (core), in the theory of the actual division of the sentence, one of two basics. components...
• SENTENCE in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  OFFER, one of the main. categories of syntax, opposed by forms, meaning and functions to the word and phrase. In a broad sense, any...

JUDGMENT - the meaning of a sentence that can be evaluated as true or false, the same as a proposition. Logic since the time of Aristotle distinguished judgment from the means of its expression - sentences. On the one hand, a judgment is not necessarily expressed by a sentence; on the other hand, not every sentence expresses a judgment: incentive and interrogative sentences do not express judgments. "Close the door!", "Where was Pushkin born?". Do not express judgments and declarative sentences containing deictic elements; for example, the sentence "She is a 4th year student" does not express any judgment by itself, since the word "she" has a different referent in each new use of this sentence. The meaning of this sentence is not a judgment, but a propositional form; it is capable of expressing a judgment only in the context of an utterance, when its variables (she) take on specific meanings.

In traditional logic, a detailed classification of judgments on various grounds has been developed. By quality, judgments are divided into affirmative and negative; by quantity - into single (Kisa is the father of Russian democracy), general, relating to the open class (Man is mortal) and private, relating to part of the open class (Some goods deteriorate during transportation); by modality - to judgments of reality, judgments of possibility, judgments of necessity; in relation - into categorical, conditional and dividing; in form - into attributive (Socrates the Greek), relational judgments (Socrates is older than Pleton), existential (Unicorns do not exist). In an attributive judgment, 3 components are distinguished - the subject, the predicate and the link. Other types of judgments do not fit into the subject-predicate scheme.

PREDICAT - (from lat. praedicatum - said) the term of logic and linguistics, denoting the constitutive member of the judgment - that which is stated (asserted or denied) about the subject. The predicate is in a predicative relation to the subject, capable of taking negation and various modal meanings. The concept of a predicative relation is wider than the concept of a predicate, to which certain semantic requirements are imposed: a predicate is not any information about the subject, but an indication of the attribute of an object, its state and relation to other objects. The meaning of existence is not considered a predicate, and sentences like "Pegasus (does not) exist" do not, according to this view, express a judgment. An indication of the name of the object (This boy is Kolya) and the identity of himself (Descartes is Cartesius) does not constitute a predicate. In a number of modern areas of logic, the concept of a predicate has been replaced by the concept of a propositional function, the arguments of which are represented by actants (terms) - the subject and the object.

The term predicate in Western European terminology systems was also used to denote the composition of the sentence corresponding to the reported, as well as the "nuclear" component of this composition. For other languages, this term was replaced by tracing-paper "predicate", which made it possible to avoid terminological confusion of logical and grammatical categories. with the term predicate first of all, the formal aspect of this member of the sentence is associated, with the term predicate - its content aspect. Therefore, it is customary to talk about the formal types of the predicate (verbal, nominal), but about the semantic types of the predicate. The following stand out: taxonomic predicates indicating the entry of an object into a class (This tree is a spruce); relational predicates indicating the relationship of a given object to other objects (Peter is Nastya's father); characterizing predicates indicating dynamic and static, permanent and transient signs of an object (The boy is running, The boy is a student, He is studying physics, He is tired, He is bored. Evaluative predicates occupy a special place in this category: The climate here is bad); predicates of temporal and spatial localization (It is now noon; Pavel is at home). Different types of predicates can be represented syncretically in the language. transitive verbs usually express not only a certain relationship between objects, but also the characteristics of these objects from the point of view of these relations.

Predicates can be classified on other grounds as well. Depending on the type of subject, there are predicates of a lower order (related to material entities) and a higher order, characterizing different types of non-material objects, among which the most sharply contrasted are predicates related to an event subject, and predicates characterizing a propositional subject (cf .: This case occurred yesterday - It is doubtful that this incident happened yesterday). According to the number of actants, the predicates are divided into single (Spruce is green), double (Spruce obscures the lair), triple (Spruce obscures the den from the hunter), etc. Yu.S. Stepanov divides predicates according to the degree of derivativeness in the language system into first-order ones, i.e. non-derivatives (The boy is learning), from second-order predicates, i.e. derivatives from the first (Boy-student), third order, i.e. derivatives from the second (This is only apprenticeship), etc.

proposition there is a proposal in which two or more ideas or

term connected or disconnected by a statement or

negation... Describing a proposition, I use as a word

Term, so the word Idea because if pure Ideas

united in Consciousness without Words, it is rather called

Judgment but when they are clothed in Words, it is called

proposition, as in the case when it is done in Consciousness, so

and in the case when it is expressed orally or in writing.

Proposition (lat. propositio - basic position, premise, subject) is a semantic invariant common to all members of the modal and communicative paradigms of the sentence and constructions derived from the sentence. Initially, the term meant in logic - a judgment, in linguistics - a sentence. The term began to acquire a new meaning at the end of the 19th century. in works on the logical analysis of the language of science; at the same time, the scope of the concept of a proposition was limited only to a part of a sentence, utterance, or speech act. Such a concept of proposition corresponded to a long-standing tendency to divide the parts of a sentence (statement, speech act) into some kind of objective semantic constant and a subjective variable. The constant must be capable of receiving a true value; the variable must be able to shape: 1) the relation of the position, expressed by the constant, to the actual reality (that is, modality is a category expressing the attitude of the speaker to the content of the statement, the attitude of the latter to reality); 2) the communicative task of the utterance; 3) assessment of the reliability of what is reported by the speaker; 4) the emotive attitude of the speaker to the reported. There is an objective semantic constant (stable semantic core) - "in city-start-disturbance" denoting the actual or possible state of affairs. The subjective variable associated with this constant and denoting the speaker’s attitudes is expressed by propositional predicates (predicates) “to assert that +”, “to be afraid, as if not +”, “to ask if there is +” ... To such a stable semantic core, in fact, the term "proposition" is used, which thus corresponds to the nominative or proper semantic aspect of the sentence. The term had little meaning until there was some standard for when to speak of propositions as identical and when as different. Not being something physical, propositions cannot be observed; but something similar is allowed for them. The question of the identity of propositions is the question of the relation between two propositions, one to the other. Such sentences must be synonymous. One can also say that a proposition is the meaning of a sentence; and this is also a well known approach. Not that all the meanings of indicative sentences are to be considered propositions; the more likely position is that the meaning of the sentence remains the same, while the proposition associated with it changes from one utterance to the next. It should be remembered that the meaning of an expression (if such things as values ​​are to be allowed) must not be confused with the object that the expression denotes, if there is one. Sentences do not designate at all, although the words that make up them may do so; sentences are simply not singular terms. But sentences do have meanings (if we allow things like meanings); and the meaning of the eternal sentence is the object denoted by the singular term formed by the propositional bracketing of the sentence, which is not so much an unsolved problem as a fallacious ideal.

AKTANT (from lat. ago - I set in motion, act)

1) any member of the sentence denoting a person, an object participating in the process indicated by the verb. The generic concept of an actant is essential for the verbocentric theory of the sentence. L. Tenier, who introduced the concept of an actant, contrasted the actant (creatures and objects participating in one way or another in the process) with circumstantials indicating time, place, mode of action, etc. He distinguished three types of actant: the first, second and third, corresponding to subject, direct object (or passive verb agent) and indirect object. Tenier's distinction between actants and circonstants was unclear and was associated with the prepositional case form of the word. Subsequently, the theory of actants followed the path of clarifying the nomenclature of actants, a more precise distinction between actants and circonstants, and, which is especially important for semantic syntax, a clearer opposition between semantic and syntactic actants. Among the actants, many linguists began to include any substantive member of the sentence (the complement of the tool, the circumstance of the place, etc.). In the semantic theory of syntax, semantic (real) actants are distinguished - a display of the elements of the situation (subject, object, addressee, etc.), and syntactic actants - members of the sentence (subject, objects, etc.). The actant structure (configuration) of a sentence is the number and nature of the actants required for the verb. There are verbs that are non-actant (Dawn), single-actant (Peter is sleeping), etc. In this meaning, the concept of an actant corresponds to valence, place or position (in a grammar oriented towards the logic of relations), "case" (in case grammar). An actant transformation is a change in the relationship between a semantic and syntactic actant, for example, "Peter sent a letter to Ivan" and "Ivan received a letter from Peter": in the first case, the address is presented as an indirect object, in the second - as a subject. A non-substantive element of the situation (action) can also be presented as a syntactic actant: "The battle continues."

2) In text theory, a typical function of a person (object) in a narrative. Actant relations form an actant model of narration.

3) Same as agent. (Typical semantic characteristic (role) of a participant in the situation (soul) described in the sentence) (patient, experimenter, place, stimulus, etc.)

PREDICATIVE - a syntactic category that determines the specifics of the main unit of syntax - a sentence; the key constitutive feature of the sentence, relating information to reality and thereby forming a unit intended for communication; a category that opposes the sentence to all other units related to the competence of syntax. In a series of syntactic constructions that have a common object of designation, for example: "flying bird", "flight of a bird", "bird flies" - the last way of designating this object has a special functional quality - predicativity.

Expressing an actualized relation to reality, predicativity distinguishes the sentence from such a unit of language as the word: the sentence "Rain!" with a special intonation, unlike the lexical unit "rain", is characterized by the fact that it is based on an abstract sample that has the potential ability to refer information to the plan of the present, past or future tense ("Rain!" - "It was raining" - "It will be rain".

In the hierarchy of features that constitute a sentence as a special unit of language, predicativity is a feature of the highest level of abstraction. The sentence model itself, its abstract sample (structural diagram) has such grammatical properties that allow presenting what is reported in one or another temporal plan, as well as modifying what is reported in the aspect of reality / unreality. The main means of forming predicativity is the category of mood, with the help of which the reported appears as actually being realized in time (present, past, or future), i.e. characterized by temporal certainty, or be thought in terms of unreality - as possible, desired, due or required, i.e. characterized by temporal uncertainty. The differentiation of these features of the reported (temporal certainty/uncertainty) is based on the opposition of the forms of express. inclinations to forms of surreal moods (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, incentive obligatory)

Predicativity, as an integral grammatical feature of any sentence model and specific statements built on this model, is correlated with objective modality. Forming one of the central units of the language and representing the most significant - truth - aspect of the reported, predicativity (as an objective modality) is a linguistic universal.

The idea of ​​the essence of predicativity (as well as the term itself) is not unambiguous. Along with the concept of V.V. Vinogradov, the term predicativity denotes the property of the predicate as a syntactic member of a two-part sentence (predicative means predicative, characteristic of the predicate). The concept of predicativity is part of the syntactic concepts "predicative relations, predicative connection", which denote relations that connect the subject and the predicate, as well as the relations of the logical subject and the predicate, in this use, predicativity is understood not as a category of the highest level of abstraction, but as a concept associated with the level of division of the proposal.

Predicativity is also called the general, global logical property of any statement, as well as the property of thought, its focus on updating the reported. This aspect of the concept of predicativity correlates with the concept of predication, the main property of which is considered to be related to reality, and the concept of proposition, the hallmark of which is the truth value.

PREDICTION - from lat. "statement" is one of the three main functions of linguistic expressions (along with nomination and location), an act of connecting independent objects of thought, expressed by independent words (normally a predicate and its actants), in order to reflect a state of affairs, an event, a situation of reality .; the act of creating a proposition. Predication is divided into 2 stages.

Stage 1 (predication in the narrow sense) - creation of a proposition, connection of the meanings of more elementary language expressions - incomplete predication

Stage 2 (predication in the broad sense) - affirmation or negation (true or false) of a proposition regarding reality - complete predication.

An incomplete predication is reflected in the language as a common part (having the form of a sentence) of several sentences related in meaning - affirmative, negative, true or false. For example, "He came", "No, he did not come!", "Did he come?", "If only he came!", "I want him to come", "It is not true that he came." The proposition 'he has come' is the same in Surface Structure as the affirmative sentence 'He has come', which, however, in Deep Structure is 'It is true that he has come'.

Completed predication is reflected in the language in the form of complete independent sentences, for example, each of the above sentences in its entirety. For the expression of incomplete predication in developed languages, there are specific forms, such as the turnover of wines. n. with an infinitive (accusat. cum infinitivo) in Indo-European languages, for example, lat. Legem brevem esse oportet (The law should be short (the law should be short)), various participial phrases, etc. The most developed form of incomplete predication is a subordinate clause with a conjunction like the Russian "what" after the verbs of belief, faith, (I believe that; think that), perceptions (see that), doubts, feelings.

The language forms of predication do not belong to any one member of the sentence, but to the sentence as a whole. Therefore, there are (and, apparently, are the oldest) forms of predication without a verb, in the form of two juxtaposed, that is, the so-called nominal sentence.

All sentences are built from terms.

Terms are divided into two types: simple and structures.

Simple terms are of two types: constants and variables, constants, in turn, are divided into atoms and numbers.

A term is a syntactic unit.

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

If predicativity is grammatical meaning sentences, then the language must also contain grammatical funds, expressing this meaning. Syntactic categories expressing the grammatical meaning of predicativity include the categories of objective modality (syntactic mood), temporality (syntactic tense), and personality (syntactic person).

Let's consider each of them.

Comparing Offers Summer! and It would be summer now! we see that in the first case the content of the sentence is related to reality as real, taking place in the present; this meaning is conveyed by the syntactic indicative, that is, the syntactic real mood. The second sentence contains a message about an event, a fact that is desirable for the speaker, but does not have a place in reality. Thus, the same content contained in the word "summer" is correlated with reality in both cases in different ways: in the first case as real, in the second - as unreal. The means of expressing these meanings of objective modality are the forms of the syntactic mood: real in the first case and unreal in the second.

So, the first category in which predicativity is expressed is the category of objective modality, which shows that the relation of what is communicated to reality is conceived either as real or as unreal (desired, possible, necessary, required, conditional). The core of this category is the category of mood of the verb. But mood is a morphological category, and objective modality is a syntactic category, so the ways of expressing it can be called syntactic moods. The differences between objective modality (syntactic mood) and morphological mood are as follows.

1) Objective modality (syntactic mood) is also expressed in verbless sentences, and morphological mood is inherent in the verb as a part of speech: Warmly, Silence, Heated, In these sentences, the syntactic real mood is presented, although the verb is absent (the means of expressing this meaning is the narrative intonation together with the zero connective; cf .: It would be warm!).

2) There are only three morphological moods in the Russian language: indicative, subjunctive and imperative, and the structure of the objective modality (syntactic mood), as shown by N.Yu. Shvedov, includes six members: 1 - real modality; . 2-6 - unreal modality, i.e. an event (action, sign) is conceived as: 2 - possible (I would sit with your child, but I have urgent business.); 3 - desired (would you sit with my baby!); 4 - required (Sit with my baby, while I go to the library;); 5 - conditional (I would sit with the child, if not for the exam,); 6 - due (I sit here with your child, and you will walk!). The main of the given meanings of unreal modality are the meanings of possibility, desirability, duty and motivation.

3) The meaning of the required or necessary action can also be conveyed by the form of the infinitive, which in morphological terms does not have inflection forms and, therefore, is outside the category of morphological mood, for example: You to perform. Everyone leave the premises immediately!

The second syntactic category, with which the expression of predicativity is associated, is the category of temporality (syntactic time), which shows the relation of the content of the utterance to one of three time plans: present, past or future. For example: Tomorrow we will write a dictation, Tomorrow we will write a dictation, Tomorrow we will write a dictation. In all three cases, the content of the message is related to the same time plan - the plan of the future, although the morphological form of the future tense of the verb is present in the first sentence.

The starting point for establishing a time plan is the moment of speech. For example, we talk about the plan of the past if the action happened (or could happen) before the moment of speech, although the morphological form of the verb meaning this action may be different, for example, the future tense: When we saw Andrey yesterday, I told him that I would visit him in the evening and give him the book. The time plan, to which all the content in this complex sentence of the message is assigned, is the plan of the past, or the past, since the event reported here took place before the moment of speech, while the verbs I will come and I will give used in the future tense.

The meaning of incentive can be related to the present or future time plan, which is specified by the context: It's time, beauty, wake up...(Pushkin). The lyrical hero addresses the beauty in such a way that the impulse to action will cope with the moment. speeches: wake up now, at once: it is time to wake up now when I say this.

May there always be sunshine!(Oshanin) - a wish that the event takes place permanently in the future.

Many researchers include among the categories that shape the predicative meaning, also the category personality, showing the relation of what is reported to the person: the speaker (meaning 1 person), the interlocutor (2 person), not to the speaker and not to the interlocutor (3 person). For example, in a sentence You will not see a holiday! the relation of the sign (action) “to see the holiday” to the interlocutor is expressed, therefore the meaning of the 2nd person is expressed in the sentence, although the verb in the 2nd person is absent in it. Consequently, the category of person (category of personality) is also a syntactic category, since there may not be a complete correspondence between the personal plan to which the message belongs and the morphological form of the person of the verb. Academician V. V. Vinogradov attributed the syntactic person to those categories that, along with the syntactic mood and syntactic tense, form the predicative meaning of the sentence.

Note. In Russian Grammar -80, the person is rightly excluded from these categories for the following reasons.

1) Often the person is associated with the meaning of the subject, found in the opposition "subjectivity / non-subjectivity"; but the subject is not a category having only a grammatical expression. In addition, there may be cases when, on the one hand, there is no subject in the sentence: It's getting light, Scolding does not mean educating, and on the other hand, there are two subjects; Every girl you have is beautiful. Bisubjective sentences do not fit into the opposition “subjectivity / non-subjectivity”.

2) If the subject does not have specific grammatical means for its expression, then the “speaking person” does not have such means. The above is illustrated by N. Yu. Shvedova with the following example: Reproach! .. Boring ... - whether the speaker, the interlocutor, or someone else reproaches cannot be unambiguously established from this segment. Knowing the further context, we already understand that someone reproaches, but the speaker perceives the reproach: Reproach!.. Boring. But I deserve it(Lermontov).

Thus, N. Yu. Shvedova and her followers derive a person from among the categories expressing predicativity.