Semantic agreement. Syntagmatic relations of semes by semes in the image of comparisons Semantic inconsistency
Concept by V.G. Gaka
According to V.G. Gaku, the compatibility of a word directly depends on its lexical meaning. The possibility or impossibility of combining words into a syntagm is determined by the presence or absence of a common seme - syntagmemes. Within the framework of the concept of syntagmatic interaction of meanings by V.G. Huck identifies the following laws regulating the behavior of syntagmemes during the formation of syntagmes:
1) Law of syntagmatic agreement. In order for two words to form the correct combination, it is necessary that in the meaning of these words - both semantically dependent and semantically dominant - there is one common seme. This general seme (syntagmeme) in in this case acts as a formal means of organizing an utterance at the semantic level. V.G. Gak notes that the repetition of seme causes a certain semantic redundancy, “which, however, contributes to noise immunity.”
2) Law of Semantic Inconsistency. For the purpose of semantic economy, the general seme in one of the members of the syntagma can be omitted, but this is possible only “in the case of stable subject relations.” For example, we can say the snake is approaching, the bird is approaching, instead of the snake crawls, the bird flies[ibid].
3) Law of Semantic Mismatch is based on the fact that the compatibility of words is influenced not only by linguistic factors themselves, but also by extralinguistic factors. The presence in the elements of a syntagma of semes that are incompatible from the point of view of real relations leads to the fact that either an additional seme appears in one word, or the extra seme disappears in another word. In both cases, “the compatibility of the semantemes is gradually restored, the mismatch turns into agreement or inconsistency.... The seme (a) introduced into the second word turns into a syntagmeme, establishing semantic agreement. The transfer of a semantic component from one word to another leads to a contextual change in meaning last word. If both contextual meanings are fixed in a word, it becomes polysemantic" [Gak, 1998: 285]. In the event that one of the semes fades away, it remains for a long time in the meaning of the word implicitly, on which metaphors or puns are usually built [ibid. ].
In order for two words to form a correct phrase, one of the following conditions must be met:
1) these words must have one common seme;
2) the semes of one word should not contradict the semes of another word;
3) if words have semes that contradict each other, then two options are possible: eliminating one of the semes in one word, or adding a new seme in another word.
Consequently, the theory of V.G. Gaka consists in the presence in a statement of iterative (repeating semes), which are an indispensable condition for any statement. The law of semantic agreement became a significant discovery of the theory created in the then new aspect of the study of linguistic units - semantic syntagmatics.
In an expanded context, the role of aspect in the formation of the semantics of a sentence decreases, since various linguistic elements are involved in expressing the course of an action. These are, in addition to the verb aspect and modes of action, lexical indicators: adverbs, pronominal words and prepositional-case combinations with adverbial temporal meanings (already, yet, often, every day, in an hour, etc.).
P.); syntactic constructions (for example, complex sentences with temporary conjunctions like so far, as long as), etc.
The Russian language implements a mechanism for semantic coordination of all aspectual elements and their duplication. According to V. G. Gak (1924-2004), semantic agreement is a repetition of one or another meaning in a phrase or sentence, semantic inconsistency is the absence of such repetition, and semantic mismatch is “a combination of opposite (or unnecessary) components” [Gak 1972: 381]. For example, in the following sentence I will do this work in two days, before Monday, the final limit of action is indicated in the very verbal form of the SV and the circumstances of time.
An unmarked member of aspectual opposition - NSV - can imply a variety of aspectual contextual meanings, but when unambiguously expressing the singularity and completeness of an action by lexical indicators in the Russian language, the use of SV is obligatory (a similar situation is observed in other Slavic languages). This is a source of errors for speakers of non-Slavic languages studying Russian, who often do not take into account the semantic coordination of contextual elements with the SV form, which is obligatory in such cases. Compare, for example, the incorrect use of species in the following sentences: *He has already eaten everything that I left him; *Do this all the way today / before 7 pm; *Have you already written your article? Today we *did everything by 7 o'clock. Yesterday I *reworked the article in two hours; Tomorrow in two hours I will *redo the article. NSV can replace SV when denoting a completed action only if the aspectual characteristic of the action (completeness, effectiveness) follows from the situation or context, but is not updated by special lexical elements (cf.: I read / have read this article, so we can use it discuss. Where did you buy / bought this dictionary?)
Thus, NSV, even outside the context of concrete-process or concrete-long-term use, retains its own specific meaning, which prevents the replacement of paired SV verbs by NSV verbs in the presence of contextual indicators of completion and effectiveness of a single action. However, when denoting repeated actions, the compatibility of NSV with such circumstances in the Russian language is usual, which confirms the neutralization of aspectual opposition in this type of context, cf.: Usually she retyped such a text in an hour. As a rule, we completed everything completely by 7 o'clock. NSV verbs, the only ones possible in such contexts, act as aspectually neutral forms and therefore are freely combined with adverbials such as in an hour, by 7 o’clock, completely, emphasizing the completion of the action.
In the Czech and Slovak languages such compatibility is impossible: the more clearly expressed process meaning of NSV verbs prevents their use in such contexts: Czech.
Takovy text ^přepisovala obyčejně za hodinu; Slovak ^Prepisovala taky text obyčajne za hodinu. The following proposals are more realistic: Czech. Takovy text přepisovala obvykle hodinu – She usually copied such a text an hour or Takovy text přepsala (CB) obvykle za hodinu and Slovak. Prepisala (CB) taky text obyčajne za hodinu – lit. * She usually retyped the text in an hour. The Polish language here shows similarities with Russian: Taki tekst ona zazwyczaj przepisywala (NSV) w godzine.
The contrast between SV and NSV is associated in the text with various semantic oppositions, between which there are hierarchical relationships. The implementation of the basic opposition of the verbs SV and NSV in relation to the limit of action determines the distinction between sequential and simultaneous actions and the distinction based on this between narration and description (see § 29). Other semantic oppositions of the verbs SV and NSV are realized, as a rule, by neutralizing the main aspectual opposition - action with the actualization of its limit (the specific factual meaning of SV) and action in the process of occurrence (the process meaning of NSV). In a number of verbs SV and NSV, the opposition to the limit of action is neutralized in the very lexical meaning of verbs, which, regardless of their type, express equally effective actions. These are, for example, verbs of instant action such as find - find. For such verbs, the main opposition between SV and NSV is built only in relation to the sign of multiplicity.
With the optional neutralization of aspectual opposition, when both aspectual forms can be used to denote the same denotative situation, the verbs SV and NSV may differ in the interpretation of this situation in a modal-pragmatic sense. Pragmatic meanings are expressed by the opposition of NSV and SV, in particular, in negation, when it is clear from the situation that the action has not yet taken place, therefore the nature of its occurrence is unimportant, as well as in incentive sentences with an imperative. Thus, when expressing an incentive not to perform an action using the form, a distinction is made between request-prohibition (RP) and warning (W). Wed: Don't pour out my coffee, please! (I'll finish it yet) / Don't spill my coffee! (I'll finish it later). The patterns of using species in the imperative may be determined by the characteristics of the communicative situation. The neutral impulse to action is expressed by the SV (Bring this magazine to class tomorrow, and now get out the textbook), the NSV verbs express a more categorical and impatient impulse (Get it out soon!). But in the etiquette constructions of invitation, greeting, and farewell, the function of neutral motivation is assigned to NSV, while SV expresses a direct impulse to action motivated by a specific situation. Wed: Come on in! Take off your clothes! Sit down! – Please go into the next room and wait for the doctor there! Please sit on another chair, this one is broken. The opposition of types in the infinitive is rich in pragmatic meanings, especially in negative sentences, for example: Ole won’t get up early tomorrow (= don’t have to get up): vacation; Olya won’t get up early tomorrow (= won’t be able to get up): she went to bed very late.
The aspect can act as an indicator of a kind of certainty / uncertainty of an action, in particular in interrogative and negative sentences (in terms of the past tense): SV expresses a known, expected action, while the verb NSV indicates only the fact of action or its absence [Rasudova 1968: 20 -21]. Wed: Alexey did not return the book to me, although I really asked him to do so / Alexey did not return any book to me, I don’t know anything. The use of NSV verbs with a general factual meaning in terms of the past tense is especially rich in additional pragmatic and thematic functions (for the complexity of the rules for choosing the past tense forms SV and NSV in the dialogical type of speech, see § 36).
Subject.
Properties subject:
1) It is the main structurally independent member of the sentence, subordinating the predicate in a two-part sentence.
2) Reflects the logical structure of thought (subject S).
3) Occupies the main syntactic position before the predicate.
5) Indicates the subject of speech
6) Usually expressed by a noun. or a personal pronoun in the form I.p.
8) It can be a morphologized CP (typical formation) and a non-morphologized CP.
9) Contains "given".
General question to the subject: What does the sentence say? This question allows you to:
1) identify the subject of speech;
2) establish “given”.
Questions Who? What? are incorrect in syntax (they are morphological)
The OGZ of the subject is the meaning of the subject of speech; it can be specified:
Carrier of action (student goes to study)
State bearer (passenger dozing)
As a quality characteristic
One of the most... ways to determine the subject is the way it is expressed.
The standard expression of the subject is a noun in I.p. (personal pronoun in I.p.)
In the Russian language, we can conditionally distinguish ways of expressing the subject:
1) Noun in I.p.
Petya carefully reads the textbook
2) Personal pronoun in I.p.
I often relax during my free time from studying.
3) A pronoun of any other category
Someone knocked the door. (indefinite pronoun)
Particular attention should be paid to relative pronouns, performing the role of the subject in the subordinate part of the SSP.
Studying is a difficult activity that not everyone can do.
4) A word of any substantivized part of speech.
The mourners stood on the platform.
5) Words of any part of speech used in the meaning of nouns.
“Hurray!” rang out in the distance.
6) Infinitive of the verb
The infinitive subject is the most semantically capacious subject, because it combines the meaning of both the subject and the action.
It is a great pleasure to live on earth.
7) Non-free phrase
There was something infantile in his behavior.
The crescent of the month has become brighter and lighter (lex. esv. SS)
8) The subject can be expressed without I.p. , in this case the subject includes a phrase with the meaning of approximate, including the words before, near, over, more, less and a combination of a numeral and a noun dependent on them in R.p.
Over two hundred applicantswere enrolled in the university.
9) A whole sentence or several sentences.
“I will, I will fly!” - it rang and sang in Alexei’s head.
Predicate
The predicate as a structural-semantic component of a sentence has a set of the following differentiating features:
1) The main member of a sentence, which structurally depends on the subject in a two-part sentence.
2) Reflects the logical structure of thought (predicate P)
3) Usually takes the main position after the subject.
4) Included in block diagram offers.
5) Designates a predicative feature of the subject of speech in modal-temporal terms (as an action, as a state, as a characteristic).
6) Usually expressed by the conjugated form of the verb (and names)
7) Forms the grammatical basis of a sentence.
8) Usually denotes something new.
In a sentence, the predicate is no less important than the subject. The subject only names the subject of speech, and the predicate characterizes it from the point of view of a predicative feature.
A predicative feature is assigned to the subject of speech in a certain modal-temporal plan.
Question to the predicate: what is said about the subject of speech?
(- like action
How is the condition
As a quality characteristic)
Questions what is he doing, what will he do- incorrect.
The expression of a predicative feature of the subject of speech in a predicate presupposes the presence of two meanings in the predicate: grammatical meaning (GZ) and real meaning (VZ).
VP is the specific name of a feature attributed to the subject of speech. It is based on the LZ word, which acts as a predicate.
The predicate must always contain a word with a full-fledged LZ.
PG is the attribution of a predicative feature to the subject of speech and its modal-temporal assessment.
The expressive element of the GC is the verb in the conjugated form or its significant absence (zero form).
The sun began (GZ, indicates the time and reality of the action) to incline (VZ) to the west.
Moonlight streams across the earth (GZ and VZ).
According to the meaning and method of expression, the predicate can be verbal, nominal and mixed.
Depending on the structure and method of expression of the civil concept: simple, compound and complex.
These two classifications complement each other, overlap each other and form a system of predicate types.
__________________________________________ TYPES OF PREDICATES_________________________________
Simple __Composite ____ Complex____________________
Verbal (PGS) Verbal (SGS) Nominal (SIS) Verbal Nominal Mixed
(SSGT) (SSIT) (SSST)
PGS - expressed by a verb and has a synthetic character, since VZ and GZ are expressed in it in parallel in one verbal word form.
Ways to express PGS:
1) Verbs in any mood.
Petya speaks at a meeting
2) Verb in any tense
3) Verb in the infinitive form.
4) So-called verbal interjections
Grab, run (for example)
5) Phraseologically non-free SS
Leontyev always experienced inexplicable sadness.
PGS can be uncomplicated (there are no complicating structural elements in the composition) and complicated (if the composition contains such complicating elements)
Complicating elements can be expressed:
Form of the syntactic imperative mood
(Let be….)
A combination of two verbs, one of which is lexically empty (took, went...)
And Vasya took one eye and closed it.
Repeated verb forms
A combination of verbs with intensifying particles (it happened, as, as if)
The day seemed to be dozing.
The snow kept getting heavier.
All forms of complicated PGS are characterized by a high degree of expressive intensity, are often emotionally charged and are used only in colloquial speech.
Compound, complex predicates are characterized by the fact that in them VZ and GZ are expressed dismembered:
In compound predicates - in two word forms.
In complex predicates - in three or more word forms.
The SGS (compound verbal predicate) is characterized by the fact that in it the VZ and GZ are expressed in a disjointed manner in two verb word forms. It consists of two parts – main and auxiliary. Main part contains the OT and is expressed by the infinitive of the verb. Auxiliary part contains a GP and is expressed by the conjugated form of the verb.
Verbs of three lexico-grammatical categories can act as connections in the auxiliary part:
1) Phasic verbs, expressing an assessment of the action called the infinitive, in terms of the phase of its occurrence. (initial, middle, final).
Petya began to answer.
2) Modal verbs , expressing the modal assessment of the action called the infinitive of the main verb.
Wanted, desired, strived, etc.
Peter couldn't prepare to the lesson properly.
3) Verbs of emotional evaluation, expressing the emotional characteristics of the action, called the infinitive of the main verb.
Petya loves to answer questions in literature lessons.
Phraseologically non-free verb-type SSs with modal meanings can also act as connectives.
He had no right to take risks, and therefore walked carefully.
N.B.
Not every combination of a conjugated verb with a dependent infinitive is a compound verbal predicate.
This may be a combination of ASG with minor members:
Petya finished preparing for his lessons (GHS).
Petya helped Sveta prepare for lessons (helped with what? In preparation for lessons)).
Petya went to Moscow to study (target infinitive)
SIS (compound nominal predicate)
SIS is characterized by the fact that in it VZ and GZ are expressed dismembered in two word forms: one verbal and one nominal.
Main part– contains the OT and is expressed by a name (any name). Also called an associated nominal member (APP).
The auxiliary part expresses the GP and is represented by a conjugated linking verb. Stand out three types of ligaments:
1) Distracted. Verb be, the copula expresses only the GZ of time and modality, is completely devoid of (v. be) VZ.
In the present tense the connective is zero.
Personal happiness impossible without the happiness of others. (N. Chernyshevsky)
2) Semi-distracted(semi-nominal) copula also expresses the meaning of modality and tense and contains residual lexical meaning.
All becomes lighter, more fun from the first snow (Pushkin).
3) Significant connectives- these are verbs that have completely retained their LC in the language, which can be used as PGS, but in this sentence they lose or have a very weakened LC and act as a connective SIS.
The night was cold.
PHI can be expressed different ways:
1) IP in different cases:
The boss was delighted.
2) By an adjective in any form (full, short, degree of comparison, etc.):
The former boss was fair.
3) Participles (in any form and any type)
The forest stood yellowed.
4) Pronouns of any ranks
5) Adverbs
Everything was the same with them.
6) Petya came second in numerals.
7) Non-free SS
Marina was a smart girl.
COMPLEX PREDICATE
SL SCs arise on the basis of compounds due to additional verbal elements. They are characterized by the fact that in them VZ and GZ are also expressed dismembered, but in 3 or more word forms.
SSGT (complex predicate of the verb type) is a predicate in which VZ and GZ are expressed dismembered in 3 or more verbal word forms. They consist of two parts: main and auxiliary.
The main part contains the VZ and is expressed by the infinitive of a full-valued verb, and the auxiliary part contains the GZ-iya and is expressed by a conjugated linking verb and an infinitive-link with a modal or phase meaning.
Vsp. Part
Peter tried to continue work.
A verbal phraseological unit can also be used as a linking verb.
SSIT - is characterized by the fact that in it VZ and GZ are expressed dismembered in three or more word forms, one nominal ( the noun form is always at the end of the predicate).
It consists of two parts: main and auxiliary.
The main part expresses the VZ and can be represented by any nominal CR and is called PICH.
The auxiliary part contains the GZ-I and is expressed by verbal connectives (?), one of which must always be expressed in a conjugated form.
SSST - is a symbiosis, a combination of nominal and verbal predicates. It is characterized by the fact that in it the VZ and GZ are also expressed dismembered, also in 3 or more word forms (nominal and verbal). Wherein the nominal component is located not at the end predicate.
SSST models:
1) Short adjective + 0 (zero connective) + Inf
Real music capable (0) of expressing wonderful feelings.
2) Word KS +0+ Inf
Sad, difficult, difficult, impossible, leisure, etc.
You can't evade the answer.
3) Noun. with evaluation value + 0 + Inf
Master, amateur, hunter, no fool, etc.
Petya was not a big eater
4) Neg. pronoun word + 0 + Inf
Not with anyone, not with anyone, nothing, not anyone, etc.
There was no one left to work.
5) Short participle. +0+Inf
In the midst of the offensive it was decided part of the troops hand over neighboring front.
6) Unsv. Collocation (verb with adjective) + Inf
He found it more convenient to avoid conversation.
The subject and predicate form the predicative basis of a two-part sentence, and predicative relationships are established between them, i.e. the relationship between the predicative feature and the subject of speech. These predicative relations are expressed using a predicative connection.
The active role in expressing this connection belongs to the predicate. The means of expressing a predicative connection are usually the forms of the predicate verb, particles, word order, intonation. In this case, the main means of communication is the form of the verb, which is entirely determined by the subject. The remaining funds are additional.
Based on the presence or absence of the main means of communication, two-part sentences are divided into two large groups:
A) Sentences with a formally expressed predicative connection.
B) Sentences with a formally unexpressed predicative connection.
In a sentence with FVPS, the predicate always contains a conjugated verb or name. This type of predicative connection is called predicative agreement. It comes in three types:
1) Grammatical agreement
2) Conditional approval
3) Semantic agreement
Grammatical agreement the predicate with the subject always presupposes the presence of common grammatical categories between them.
The means of expressing grammatical agreement is the ending of the predicate.
Brevity is the sister of talent (similarity in the form of gender, number, case)
Conditional approval– observed:
1) with the subject, expressed by an unchangeable word, the predicate is conditionally agreed in the form:
Currently and bud. tense – in the 3rd person singular. h.;
In the past tense and subjunctive mood- in f. units Wed kind).
2) With a subject, an expressed cardinal numeral, a combination of a numeral with a noun in R.p., the predicate is conditionally agreed in the same forms.
There were three buses at the stop.
3) The predicate is conditionally agreed with the infinitive subject in the same forms.
Seeing shortcomings meant the ability to self-criticize.
With subject, expressed pronoun who, the predicate is conditionally agreed in the form of the 3rd person singular. numbers, and in the past tense and subjunctive mood - in the form of m.r. (units)
Someone knocked the door.
With the subject, expressed pronoun that (something, etc.), the predicate is conditionally agreed in the form of the 3rd person singular, and in the past tense - in the form of s.r.
Something stirred in the hollow
Semantic Negotiation
In semantic agreement, the form of the predicate is determined not by the form of the subject, but by its semantics (meaning)
There are cases:
1) If the subject is expressed by a combination of a numeral with a noun, the predicate is used in the plural. number, if It is necessary to emphasize the separateness and independence of objects.
Four students stood outside the office.
2) If the subject is expressed by SS with the meaning compatibility, the predicate is used in the plural.
Brother and sister arrived in the city.
3) If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable noun denoting an animal, then the predicate in the present. and bud. time is placed in the form of 3 l. units numbers, and in the past tense - in m.r. (or f.r.)
A beautiful cockatoo was sitting on a branch.
If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable proper noun denoting an object, the form of the predicate is determined by the gender of the word being defined
If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable common noun denoting an object, the predicate is in the form s.r.
If the subject is expressed by an indeclinable noun (a complex abbreviated word), then the form of the predicate is determined by the gender of the supporting word.
If the subject is expressed as a noun. a word of general gender or a word close in meaning, the form of the predicate is determined by the gender of the person.
The idea of coordinating meanings in speech structures was proposed by L. Tenier. As a theory of lexical solidarities, it was developed by E. Cosseriou; introduced into Russian studies and further developed by V, G, Gak [Gak 1972] as the law of semantic coordination (semantic solidarity by G. A. Zolotova),
was concretized in the works of Yu. D. Apresyan [Apresyan 1974, 1995] and others. This is the fundamental law of Language. In contrast to structural linguistics, where the grammatical correctness of a sentence is fundamentally important, but not its meaning (cf. N. Chomsky’s words about the acceptability of a sentence Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, since it is grammatically correct), for us the basis of a sentence is its content invariant
Considering the main function of language to be communicativeness, the transmission of meaningful information, we assume that Language has a powerful set of mechanisms that protect it from nonsense. The main one is the law of semantic agreement, which boils down to the fact that in any statement, semes that carry one meaning or another are repeated at least twice.
Yes, in a sentence We arrived yesterday The seme “multiplicity of subjects” is repeated twice (in “we” and in the form of the verb) and twice - the seme “past tense” (in the verb - formant l and yesterday). ZSS manifests itself in three possible implementations: 1) semantic agreement; 2) semantic compatibility; 3) semantic mismatch.
1. Semantic agreement(selection by E. Cosseriou) is a repetition of the seme “a” of the same name in two or more components of M. Following V. G. Gak, let’s present this case in the form of a formula: M1(a) + M2(a), for example: The plane was flying south; The car was driving to the station; The dog ran towards the house- where semes of the same name are presented in each pair of highlighted words: airplane- means of transportation by air and fly- move, move through the air (about flying machines); car- vehicle, and drive- move, move on land or water using any means of transportation, etc.
2. Semantic compatibility(affinity according to E. Cosseriou) is a conjunction (combination, combination) of two semes, one of which has a broader meaning (a), and the second a more specific one (a+), but at the same time they do not contradict each other.
Note. For V. G. Gak this is “semantic inconsistency.” We use the term “compatibility” not only because there is still agreement here, but also because at first perception, “inconsistency” is understood as the antonym of “harmonization.”
This case can be illustrated by the following examples: Airplane(M1 a+) was heading/followed(M2,a) South; Car(M1, a+) was heading(M2, a) to the station; Dog(M1, a+ ) was heading(M2, a) To home- where, unlike the first case, the verbs to be guided, to follow are not characterized in relation to the method of movement and in this regard are unmarked words that generalize in relation to verbs fly, drive, run. The formula looks like; M1 (a+) + M2(a) or vice versa: M1 (a) + M2 (a+).
But in these sentences there is also semantic agreement, that is, formula (1) is implemented in relation to the seme “direction” (directives); head south/to the station/to your house. This seme is one of three,
characterizing the direction of movement (except for the name S). In examples like The plane was flying south between verb fly and directive to the south Also, there is a relationship not of actual coordination, but of compatibility, since Russian unprefixed verbs of movement appear not only in combination with the finish directive, but also with the “route” component (cf. sentences: Airplane flew over the forest- Where did you fly?; The car was driving down the street- Where did you go?; The dog ran across the yard- Where did you run?) and with the “directive-start” component: The plane was flying from the south; The car was coming from the center; The dog ran from the direction of the village. Both of these components - the track and the start directive - will be impossible with the verb to be guided Wed unchecked: *The plane was heading over the forest/from the south; *The car was heading down the alley; *The dog was heading across the yard.
Regarding these two hypostases of the ZSS, we note the following:
1) It is semantic compatibility that is often interpreted as complete
lack of semantic connections. But this is not true: the component with (a+) is still “oriented” towards this a, as being consonant with it. So, in sentences: (1) In the summer I lived in the village;(2) In the summer he wrote an article;(3) He came in the summer - the syntax in summer is, as it were, indifferent regarding the nature of the action. Indeed, in relation to live and write, she is the bearer of an unmarked seme (the seme “temporalization”, or localization in time), an unmarked member of the privative opposition (§ 28) and for these verbs semantic agreement would be realized in sentences with the dimension All summer I lived in the village; and with a terminative Over the summer he wrote article, having the same names as live and write semes. However, in relation to the verb to come, of all the presented ITGs, only in summer, compare: *All summer he I arrived; * 3a summer he I arrived . Accordingly, in (3) there is semantic agreement for the verb.
2) As V. G. Gak showed, languages can “adhere” mainly to one or another method of coordination. The Russian language “prefers” semantic agreement, therefore, it contains systemic and frequent sentences like The flock stands in the corner; The carpet lies on the floor, the picture hangs on the wall; French will select the unmarked verb located.A specific verb is chosen in the case of a non-trivial state of affairs: The table lies in the corner.
The discrepancy in the type of agreement explains the errors of foreign speakers. Semantic agreement forces us to choose a word form for the verb sit on a chair: I was sitting on a chair. In Iranian languages, there will be a preposition here that names a location without the characteristic position “on the surface” (the connection between the meanings of “sit” and “chair” is systemic) - the preposition dar (in Korean - the particle -e). If instead of a chair there was a table - an object not intended for sitting, the combination of prepositions dar roi-e (mez) - on the table (lit., “on the face of the table”) would be chosen. Since the gift is usually correlated with Russian in, the Iranophones have an error I was sitting in a chair frequency, as well as type errors I came(came instead) e Russia from Bulgaria (from Germany)- among the Bulgarians and Germans. “Their” compatibility turns into “our” mismatch, that is, an error.
The same goes for combinations with locatives and directives. In Slavic languages (except Bulgarian), as is known, locatives and directives are formally
differ and semantically agree with the verb: live, be, be located in Orel /in the south/ behind the forest; to head, fly, go to Oryol / south / beyond the forest. In Bulgarian, French, Georgian there is one form that is indifferent to locative/directive-finish differences, and the ZSS is realized as semantic compatibility; hence system errors like: *npuexal in Orel, perceived by Russians as a semantic mismatch.
3. Semantic mismatch- a phenomenon that can be used as a tool for answering the question “Why is this wrong?” in order to understand the mechanism of “correctness”. There are at least two reasons for the discrepancy:
1) No (0) context partner to the family a, that is: M1(a)+M2(0), for example: *C I've been reading books for years where in the gradualism over the years there is a seme of gradualism,
but there is no such seme in the text; Wed sentences with completed seme
WITH over the years I read more and more books/more and more serious books/books about more and more serious problems; Same: *The plane is heading from the south; And: The plane is heading from south to north. In this option the result is always
is the semantic destruction (destruction) of the sentence;
2) The conjunction of terms that are opposite in meaning, for example (a+) and (a-), when the formula looks like: Mi (a*) + M 2 (a~), For example: *He came all summer- where the dimension all summer has this duration, and the verb to come is one-act (more on this below), which explains the incorrectness of the sentence. With this option the result is:
- or destruction of the meaning of the sentence, see the example with the “*” sign, as well as “green ideas...” (the seme of materiality in green and abstraction in ideas).
- or rethinking the component, Wed for example, the expression before
school in sentences: (1) He stopped in front of the school Where before school- locative formed by a subject name school and semantically consistent with the verb stay, calling the cessation of movement in space, and the same expression in sentence (2): Before school he got a sore throat- where there is no seme locativity, objectivity, but there are semes with the meaning “state”, which makes it possible to understand the word form before school How before school, before the start of the school year,that is, to attribute a positive meaning to the subject word. Wed. Also: blue dream, black thoughts.
This is the essence and main cases of manifestation of ZSS. It is realized, as already mentioned, in specific mechanisms: valence, grammatical
accession and implication (lexical solidarity).