on two russian constructions: what else if not synonyms? nezrin samedova, azerbaijan university of...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
On Two Russian Constructions:
What Else If Not Synonyms?
Nezrin Samedova,Azerbaijan University of Languages
![Page 2: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
NACHAT’ + INFvs.
the perfective constructionSTAT’ + INF
![Page 3: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
They substitute each other.
However, their meaningsare not completely identical.
The question is:What is their semantic singularity?
There is no unanimously acceptedanswer to the question.
![Page 4: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
We have investigated the problem
using the method of system analysis
[Ломтев 1976]
![Page 5: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. Both constructions have the meaning of the beginning (initiality).
2. Both are translated into English as to begin+INF.
3. Both are widely used.4. The areas of their usage fully coincide.5. The main components of both are
perfective, whereas only imperfectives are permitted as their non-main components.
![Page 6: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
It is clear, however, thatthe semantic identityof these constructionscannot be absolute.
![Page 7: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Indeed, STAT’ + INF is used much more frequently
than NACHAT’ + INF, cf. Russian National Corpus.
Hence, we can applythe Kruszewski – Kuriłowicz rule.
![Page 8: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Kruszewski – Kuriłowicz rule:the linguistic unit
that is used more frequentlyis semantically simpler
than the linguistic unit used less frequently
(the principle of economy)
![Page 9: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Therefore, we can state
that STAT’ + INFis semantically simplerthan NACHAT’ + INF.
![Page 10: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The comparison NACHAT’ vs. NACHINAT’
enables to state:
the construction NACHAT’ + INFhas the following semantic structure
(we ignore irrelevant details)
![Page 11: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1. the non-aspectual meaning of a non-homogeneous process (initiality)
-and correspondingly –
2. the aspectual meaning of the final moment (perfectivity);
3. the non-aspectual meaning of the
process inherent in an infinitive.
![Page 12: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
If to use the metaphor of linefor interpreting the concept of a process
and the metaphor of pointto interpret the concept of perfectivity,
we can illustratethe meaning of NACHAT’ + INF:
initiality a process─────────────•─────────────
perfectivity
(Both metaphors possess a specific cognitive content)
![Page 13: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
As regards STAT’ + INF,
we face a paradox.
![Page 14: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
On the one hand,the meaning of its components contains
three elements in total.
Two of them belong to the verb STAT’:- the non-aspectual meaning of a process,
- perfectivity.
One belongs to the infinitive:- the non-aspectual meaning of a process.
![Page 15: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
On the other hand,the meaning of STAT’ + INF contains
fewer than three elements,
for it is simplerthan the meaning of NACHAT’ + INF.
![Page 16: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
G.S. Samedov has solved the paradox:
Two meanings of a process merge.
Thus, STAT’ + INF has
the meaning of a syncretic process.
![Page 17: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
The merger is possiblebecause the nature of the initiality
possessed by STAT’ + INFis different from the one
characterizing NACHAT’ + INF.
It is like a point.
![Page 18: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
In other words,the initiality
attributing to the verb STAT’is punctual.
It isthe meaning of the initial moment.
That is why it does not preventthe meanings of a process
from amalgamating:
![Page 19: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Initiality(punctual)•──────────────────────────
a syncretic process
Thus, the meaningof the perfective construction
STAT’ + INFindeed contains two elements.
![Page 20: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Thus, the paradox is solvedif to differentiate two types of initiality:
linear and punctual.The nature of punctual initiality
is aspectual. It is perfectivity.
Linear initiality is non-aspectual.
![Page 21: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Besides being a special interestfor languages that have the category of aspect,
the analysis enables to makethe following fundamental
conclusion.
![Page 22: On Two Russian Constructions: What Else If Not Synonyms? Nezrin Samedova, Azerbaijan University of Languages](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081421/551c0a90550346ad4f8b50ad/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Linguistics does needthe concept of synonymy.
As to the nature of the phenomenon,the analyzed case
has shed new light on it.