The paper presents an attempt to describe improper purpose constructions in the Russian language on the foundation of functional approach to inter-level interaction between linguistic units, involving logical and pragmatic components of compositional analysis of linguistic material. Сonstructions under consideration require detailed analysis of relevant aspect-related, temporal and pragmatic characteristics. Analysis of such structures is more practical through lens of functional grammar that assumes emphasis on communicative-pragmatic aspect of language. Modern linguistic is characterized with a renewed interest to the functional aspect of language, as moving functional significance of current linguistic processes to the forefront determines revealing their essential properties. The functional approach to linguistic phenomena brings to the front the mobility of all linguistic model elements and relation between them, interdependence of aspects and vehicles. Such approach to studying syntactic constructions allows extensively using capabilities of hidden grammar and lexical content of utterances. The structures under consideration show deviation from their prototypic variants as a typical conjunction of purpose in some contexts is capable of conveying non-purpose relations between parts of an utterance. Taking into consideration the logical rule of sufficient foundation, as well as using expression of one and the same semantic attribute of counter-factual nature, improper purpose statements may be divided into three groups: with the meaning of insufficient quality or quantity, excessive quality or quantity and with the meaning of substitution. Description of linguistic material was done with analysis of structural-semantic peculiarities, aspect-temporal characteristic and pragmatic foundations with the aim of revealing their inter-relations.
Keywords: False purpose constructionsaspectualitytemporalitypragmatics
The problem of expressing predicament relations with linguistic means necessitates that a linguist turns their attention not only to proper linguistic methods of their manifestation, but also to logical structures that order cogitative content as a propositional foundation of an utterance, and to pragmatic factors that form relations characterized with modality (Orkina, 2010). Functional-semantic field of predicament is a two-part (content and form) unity, which is formed from interaction of grammatical (morphological and syntactic) means of a given language with lexical, lexical-grammatical and word formation elements related to the same semantic zone. According to Bondarko's (2002) definition, it is “a group of means pertaining to different levels of a given language, interacting on the basis of community of their semantic functions expressing variants of a certain semantic category” (p. 77).
Logical rule of sufficient foundation is an integrating origin that forms the predicament sphere in the general sense. That is why, the whole circle of predicament-related meanings appears as an integral whole, as it “supposes such a relation between the situations, where one is a sufficient condition for actualization of another” (Russian Grammar, 1980, p. 514). A certain semantic situation may be seen as a determining or being determined only within the framework of the two-part predicament structures. For example, in utterances containing goal-setting predicament relations a certain situation (e.g.,
Timeliness of this research is determined by the fact that analysis of pragmatic, logical, modal, aspectual and temporal features of semantics allows for a multi-aspect systemic approach in analysis of syntactic structures of a certain language. Representation of language as a system, necessity of integral understanding of linguistic facts allowed identifying textual distinction of utterances with improper purpose semantic in the Russian language, their essential regularities, structural capabilities and peculiarities of functioning.
Improper purpose utterances, which appear as syntactically-bound constructions with nonspecific linkers represent a special form of representation of predicament relations in the Russian language. The main clause of such structures contains a reference to a lack of sufficient justification to proceed with the actions named in the subordinate clause. Thus, the main tasks of this research the authors see as a necessity to identify morphological, syntactic and lexical means, as well as logical and pragmatic relations that form structural-semantic complexes and substantiating their inclusion into the functional-semantic field of predicament. Analysis of interactions between these linguistic means of different levels will allow demonstrating the complex approach to studying syntactic constructions of the Russian language.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to show the features of functional interaction between linguistic means of different levels of the Russian language as exemplified by improper purpose constructions.
During the research the authors employed descriptive-analytical, and contextual-logical methods, as well as elements of transformational and context analysis.
Syntactic structures with predicament relations of purpose are structurally different from their prototypical variants, which undoubtedly sparks special interest, especially from the positions of functional-semantic description. For example:
Beloshapkova (2008) while analyzing similar constructions notes that by the nature of their value, the quantifiers in their main part may be divided into three groups: “1) words with the meaning of measure:
Consequently, on the basis of expressing the same semantic attribute of counter-factuality, the utterances with the goal-setting relations that implement actualization of typical structural models of the
The authors conducted the analysis of
Frequency of nouns and adjectives with the stable component
A verb is undoubtedly mandatory in combination with the
The perfective form (P) usually appear in this model in a situation of repeated action and denotes a fact that may materialize in any moment. Here we may see a particular meaning of perfective aspect – potential, conveying the way of portraying constantly possible though singular (Bondarko, 2002). For example.
The dependent clause of such constructions is usually a mononuclear sentence or an infinitive sentence. One of the main functions of infinitive as a verbal form is an abstract representation of an action. This property of infinitive is inextricably linked to the generalized-factual function of the imperfective form. The imperfective form in opposition to the perfective form is devoid of attribute and in its generalized-factual function conveys only the information on the very existence of the action (happened or did not happen). Such capability of the imperfective form for simple nomination of action is very harmonically actualized in the form of infinitive, the most acceptable and logical for generalized-nominative variety of the generalized-factual situation. Modal attributes of this type of utterances are also linked to the infinitive form: on the one hand, the infinitive itself is capable of conveying a wide range of modal meanings, on the other hand, this form may combine with a wide range of modal words (Guiraud-Weber, 1986). For example.
Infinitive in the dependent clause of the constructions in question usually designates an action that did not happen but is only possible, desirable, which may be emphasized by use of words with modal semantics:
Aspectual characteristic of the verbal forms is intertwined with their temporal characteristic. While the infinitive is indifferent to the category of tense, however, hypothetically possible action expressed with an infinitive may be included into the plane of present or past tense (less often – future), which is possible by means of lexical content of the main clause. The starting point is the speech act of the speaker. Present tense may be represented by any of its two varieties: in present non-actual – non-localized time, e.g.:
As it has already been noted, the constructions in question show a shift away from the prototypic understanding of purpose, which is explained by putting the idea of goal-setting into a complex modal frame. According to the context condition, they involve neutralization of the proper purpose meaning (Russian Grammar, 1980). Thus, semantic structure of the improper purpose constructions is based upon pragmatic presuppositions, which determined the subsequent
The evaluation is provided from the significance of goals set by the speaker. In the main clause of the construction that contains evaluation of a subject/object, there is a reference to certain qualities of the subject that in the speaker's mind represent a deviation from the norm (either in a given situation or in the general sense) and are causing impossibility of performing certain action with respect to this subject / object or by the subject themselves (Danilova, 2011). For example:
In utterances that contain evaluation of a situation, the main clause names such circumstances of a certain action that are characterized as not conforming to those standard conditions in which this action is usually actualized, for example:
So, an important part of the semantic structure of the improper purpose utterances is a certain type of pragmatic component “determined by the nature of speaker's evaluation of another person's action or situation as a whole with respect to their conformance to the norm, to preset canons” (Orkina, 2010). As a result of the analysis, the authors identified regular pragmatic foundations of the structures in question. For example, there is a typical pragmatic type of “judgment / reproach / discontent”, e.g.:
Thus, the analysis of syntactically-linked constructions with the
- Beloshapkova, V. A. (2008). Modern Russian Language. Syntax. Moscow: Academia.
- Bondarko, A. V. (2002). Semantic Theory in the System of Functional Grammar: As exemplified by the Russian Language. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.
- Danilova, E. A. (2011). Utterances With Anti-purpose Semantics In the Contemporary Russian Language: An Attempt of Complex Analysis. Cheboksary: Chuvash State Pedagogical University.
- Danilova, E. A., Plotnikova, E. V., & Iurkina, T. N. (2018). Predicament relations in utterances with motivational, goal-setting and concessional semantics. Annals of Chuvash State Pedagogical University named after I.Ya. Iakovlev, 2, 69–77.
- Evtiukhin, V. B. (1997). Predicament Category in the Contemporary Russian Language and Problems in the Theory of Syntactic Categories. Saint Petersburg: Publishing house of the Saint Petersburg University.
- Guiraud-Weber, M. (1986). Sémantisme verbal et aspect en russe et en français. RESl., LVIII(4), 591.
- Leisi, E. (1978). Paarsprache. Linguistische Aspekte der Zweierbeziehung. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.
- Nikolaeva, T. M. (2013). Linguistics: Selected works. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.
- Orkina, L. N. (2010). Syntactic structures with predicament semantics in the contemporary Russian language. St. Petersburg: Saga.
- Russian Grammar (1980). Russian Grammar, vol. 2. Syntax. Moscow: Nauka.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
21 January 2020
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Danilova*, L., Iurkina, T., Pastukhova, L., & Iakushina, Z. (2020). Peculiarities Of Functional Interaction Between Russian Linguistic Means Of Different Levels. In D. Karim-Sultanovich Bataev, S. Aidievich Gapurov, A. Dogievich Osmaev, V. Khumaidovich Akaev, L. Musaevna Idigova, M. Rukmanovich Ovhadov, A. Ruslanovich Salgiriev, & M. Muslamovna Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 76. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 643-651). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.87