Search

International audience; The paper deals with où- (‹where›) relatives in contemporary spoken French. Their analysis confirms that locative relatives are widely represented. However, a minority of our examples present difficulties of analysis: The grammatical link between the SN and the verb of the relative is complex –or impossible– to establish. We propose to consider that these atypical structures establish a discursive –rather than syntactic– relationship between the SN and the subsequent part, which can be described on the basis of certain semantic values such as characterization, specification or definition.; L’article propose un bilan sur les relatives en où en français parlé contemporain, fondé sur la description de 1 373 exemples. À côté des relatives à valeur locative largement représentées, certaines occurrences sont plus difficiles à analyser : dans celles-ci, le lien grammatical entre le SN et le verbe de la relative est complexe – voire impossible – à établir. Nous proposerons de considérer que ces structures atypiques instaurent une relation discursive – plutôt que syntaxique – entre le SN et la partie subséquente, pouvant être décrite sur la base de certaines valeurs sémantiques telles que la caractérisation, la spécification ou la définition.

Автором рассмотрены трудности обучающихся при выполнении экзаменационных заданий 2 и 3 по русскому языку основного государственного экзамена. Также в работе даны методические рекомендации по обучению пунктуационному и синтаксическому анализов., The author considers the difficulties of students in performing examination tasks 2 and 3 in the Russian language of the main state exam. The methodological recommendations for teaching punctuation and syntactic analysis are also shown in the article.

The article is devoted to the use of syntactic units in the language of film actors. The article draws attention to various ideas and considerations regarding the use of syntactic units in all areas of the cinematic language. The reader is presented about themes, genres, style problems in Azerbaijani cinema, screen artists, large-format publishing, a variety of styles in the director’s work, various problems of cinema and theater poetry, the history of television poetry and style. The differences in some cases between the written language and its oral form, innovation, accent, facial expressions and gestures of the actors by the setting of the pavilion and the fact that the dramatic point of view of the film is conveyed to the reader only by word. Since thought is known in dialogical speech, the narrative of some members of a sentence, complex sentences requiring details are omitted. The film pavilion, structure, actor’s movements, images form the basis of the article. Readers can extract information from all this, especially since directors and actors choose syntactic units that are more suitable for spoken language. The article also provides tips from individual films and presents ideas for any explanation.

Вринчану Ф. Дискуссионные проблемы изучения синтаксических связей в румынской грамматике. Статья посвящена комплексному исследованию структуры, семантики и прагматики синтаксических связей на материале румынского языка. Рассмотрены теоретические положения, которые являются исходными в изучении синтаксических связей: проблемы определения синтаксических связей, «содержание» и «форма» в синтаксисе, синтаксические единицы, независимость / зависимость синтаксических единиц. Проанализированы содержание синтаксических связей, средства выражения синтаксических связей, типы синтаксических связей, обнаруженные в румынском языке. Для определения понятия и характеристики типы синтаксических связей применены следующие критерии: значение синтаксических единиц, которые формируют определенную синтаксическую связь; коммуникативный план, к которому относятся единицы, степень взаимодействия единиц, вступившие в связь, влияние характера связи на проявление синтаксических функций. Ключевые слова: синтаксическая связь, синтаксические единицы, синтаксические функции, предложение, сложное предложение, коммуникативный план. Vranceanu F.D. Controversial problems of studying syntactic relations in the Romanian grammar. The article is devoted to the complex study of the structure, semantics and pragmatics of syntactic relations in Romanian language. The theoretical provisions fundamental for this work are reviewed: the problem of identifying syntactic relations, “content” and “form” in the syntax, syntactic units, independent / dependent syntactic units. The author analyzes content of syntactic relation, means and types of syntactic relations in Romanian. To define the concept and characteristics of syntactic relation, the following criteria are applied: meaning of syntactic units that enter into a syntactic connection, communication sphere where the units belong, measure of their interaction, and the impact their connection produces on syntactic functions manifestation. Nonhomogeneity of syntactic relations is explicit both in terms of content and expressiveness. Syntactic relation is not an expansion, or strengthening, of a certain syntactic unit position. This approach is based on the identification of two principles generating syntactic structures: the principle of development (the definition of coordination presupposes the development of a minimum existing utterance by creating syntactic functions), the principle of arrangement (the definition of coordination presupposes the arrangement of maximum existing utterance components). Key words: syntactic relation, syntactic units, syntactic functions, sentence, complex sentence, conjunctions

Статья посвящена русской грамматической традиции в установлении единиц синтаксиса, рассматриваемой с позиций понимания науки как системы операций с утверждениями. Анализируются два компонента формирования этой традиции: собственные утверждения ученых касательно единиц и объектов синтаксиса и интерпретация утверждений предшественников, которая может находиться на разном расстоянии от оригинальной научной парадигмы, в которой эти утверждения изначально были сделаны. Выявляется ряд неточностей в оперировании утверждениями, сделанными классиками отечественной лингвистики А. А. Шахматовым и В. В. Виноградовым, у их последователей, Within the modern methodological framework of regarding science as operations with statements (B. Latour, S. Woolgar) the article aims at answering the question: which approaches to syntactic units could really be labelled as the Russian grammar tradition Two aspects constituting this tradition are discussed: independent statements made by outstanding scientists (original texts) and their later interpretations (posttexts) which may be rather distant from the original paradigm these statements were made in. Comparing the original texts and later posttexts, we discover and try to systematize the misrepresentations and misinterpretations which are further spread among new generations of linguists via internet. Thus, comparison of statements on syntactic units made by the fathers of Russian linguistics A. A. Shakhamatov and V. V. Vinogradov and their re ection in the works of their successors reveals a number of inaccuracies which themselves form a tradition. The fact that substantial misinterpretations of the fathers syntactic views can be found even in classical university textbooks is illustrated by introducing M. V. Lomonosov and A. A. Shakhamatov in V. A. Beloshapkovas wellknown Russian syntax for universities as the founders of the allegedly traditional idea that two syntactic units should be distinguished: sentence (predlozhenie) and word combination (slovosochetanie). Also we demonstrate the following types of misrepresentations and misinterpretations: 1) the tendency of integrating Shakhamatovs and Vinogradovs views on syntactic units into the structuralistic levelbased approach to language 2) the distortion of causal relations in textbook explanations why this or that scholar formulated his or her idea of syntactic units and 3) the excessively broad or narrow approach to the idea of succession which can be selected by authors of posttexts to defend their own position in Russian grammar tradition and to cross scienti c opponents out of it. Recognizing that some of these inaccuracies arise from the original texts themselves (changes in the scholars views during his life ambiguous statements combination of terminological and nonterminological usage of the same word), we argue that a lot of them still stem from a conscious or unconscious wish of an author of a textbook or other posttext to present an integrated view of the Russian grammar tradition rather than investigate the real history of operations with statements on syntactic units in it., №13 (2019)

The article discusses current issues of linguistics with a person in the center of events. Underlined that in the center of modern linguistic research is a Person – active speech personality. The problem of choosing optimal variant of syntactic units are examined by the speeker due to extralingual factors. These include communicative intent, intentions and speech experience of the author, the situation of communication, especially interlocutor and so on. For successful communication must take into account the mobility of the language system, which opens up the opportunity of using constructions – simple and complex sentences, provides informative speech, stylistic diversity, expressiveness. Research nominations syntactic variance problem is related to the creative aspect of grammar in general. The role of the speaker as the author of expression is extraordinary, because the selection of sentence structure and method of nomination depends on the communicative competence, knowledge and ability to work .The author should consider informative value of each component of the phrase because the parts of the sentence perform different communicative role. The choice of syntactic structure "tells" to other participants of communication, which is the type of relationship topical in particular "world view" of the speaker: a) between members of the situation or b) between the situations of reality, or c) between communicative unequal situations d) between the giving situation and speaker . During the communication sentence can increase information potential for the help of the secondary part of the sentence and complicating constructions. They are interpreted as grammatical and lexical actualizators. They collect semantic of predicative part of complex and coordinated sentences and identify the trend to economy of language features, the ability to re-form syntax links. In the article the central and peripheral phenomena is underlined and analyzed mandatory and discretionary syntax options, shown tendencies of differentiation and integration capabilities. Stated that complex of variant syntactic units represents the richness of the Ukrainian language considering of its national specificity. Key words: native speaker, communication, syntactic units, syntax nomination, predication, variant syntactic, selection of syntactic means, communicative competence. В статье рассмотрена проблема выбора говорящим оптимального варианта синтаксических единиц с учетом экстралингвистических факторов, влияющих на обстановку общения с целью реализации авторских интенций. Для успешной коммуникации необходимо учитывать динамизм языковой системы, предполагающей возможность использования вариативных конструкций – простых (в т. ч. и осложненных) и сложных предложений, что позволяет придать речи информативной насыщенности, стилистического разнообразия, экспрессивности речи.Ключевые слова: антропоцентризм, говорящий, коммуникация, синтаксическая номинация, предикация, актуализаторы, динамичность синтаксической системы, синтаксические варианты, выбор синтак- сических средств.

Статья посвящена русской грамматической традиции в установлении единиц синтаксиса, рассматриваемой с позиций понимания науки как системы операций с утверждениями. Анализируются два компонента формирования этой традиции: собственные утверждения ученых касательно единиц и объектов синтаксиса и интерпретация утверждений предшественников, которая может находиться на разном расстоянии от оригинальной научной парадигмы, в которой эти утверждения изначально были сделаны. Выявляется ряд неточностей в оперировании утверждениями, сделанными классиками отечественной лингвистики А.А. Шахматовым и В.В. Виноградовым, у их последователей., Within the modern methodological framework of regarding science as operations with statements (B. Latour, S. Woolgar) the article aims at answering the question: which approaches to syntactic units could really be labelled as the Russian grammar tradition Two aspects constituting this tradition are discussed: independent statements made by outstanding scientists (original texts) and their later interpretations (posttexts) which may be rather distant from the original paradigm these statements were made in. Comparing the original texts and later posttexts we discover and try to systematize the misrepresentations and misinterpretations which are further 139Научные традиции в русской лингвистике spread among new generations of linguists via internet. Thus, comparison of statements on syntactic units made by Russian linguistic classics A.A. Shakhamatov and V.V. Vinogradov and their reflection in the works of their successors reveals a number of inaccuracies which themselves form a tradition. The fact that substantial misinterpretations of the ancestors syntactic views can be found even in classical university textbooks is illustrated by the presentation of M.V. Lomonosov and A.A. Shakhamatov in V.A. Beloshapkovas wellknown Russian syntax for universities as the founders of the allegedly traditional idea that two syntactic units should be distinguished: sentence (predlozhenie) and word combination (slovosochetanie). Also we demonstrate the following types of misrepresentations and misinterpretations: 1) the tendency of integrating Shakhamatovs and Vinogradovs view on syntactic units into the structuralistic levelbased approach to language 2) the distortion of causal relations in textbook explanations why this or that scientist formulated his or her idea of syntactic units and 3) the excessively broad or narrow approach to the idea of succession which can be selected by authors of posttexts to defend their own position in Russian grammar tradition and to cross scientific opponents out of it. Recognizing that some of these inaccuracies arise from the original texts themselves (changes in the scientists views during his life ambiguous statements combination of terminological and nonterminological usage of the same word), we argue that a lot of them still stem from conscious or unconscious wish of an author of a textbook or other posttext to present an integrated view of the Russian grammar tradition rather than investigate the real history of operations with statements on syntactic units in it., №12 (2019)

Стаття присвячена комплексному дослідженню структури, семантики і прагматики синтаксичних зв'язків на матеріалі румунської мови. Розглянуто теоретичні положення, які є вихідними у вивченні синтаксичних зв'язків: проблеми визначення синтаксичних зв'язків, «зміст» і «форма» всинтаксисі, синтаксичні одиниці, незалежність / залежність синтаксичних одиниць. Проаналізовано зміст синтаксичних зв'язків, засоби вираження синтаксичних зв'язків, типи синтаксичних зв'язків, виявлені в румунській мові. Для визначення поняття і характеристики типи синтаксичних зв'язків застосовані наступні критерії: значення синтаксичних одиниць, які формують певний синтаксичний зв'язок; комунікативний план, до якого відносяться одиниці, ступінь взаємодії одиниць, які вступили в зв'язок, вплив характеру зв'язку на прояв синтаксичних функцій., The article is devoted to a complex study of the structure, semantics and pragmatics of syntactic relations on the material of the Romanian language. Theoretical propositions are considered that are initial in the study of syntactic links: the problems of defining syntactic links, "content" and "form" in syntax, syntactic units, independence / dependence of syntactic units. The content of syntactic links, the means of expressing syntactic links, the types of syntactic links found in the Romanian language are analyzed. To define the concept and characteristics of the types of syntactic links, the following criteria are applied: the value of the syntactic units that form a certain syntactic relationship; communicative plan, which includes units, the degree of interaction units that have entered into a relationship, the influence of the nature of the connection on the manifestation of syntactic functions., L'article est consacré à une étude complexe de la structure, de la sémantique et de la pragmatique des relations syntaxiques sur le matériel de la langue roumaine. Les propositions théoriques sont considérées comme initiales dans l'étude des liens syntaxiques: les problèmes de définition de liens syntaxiques, de "contenu" et de "forme" dans syntaxe, unités syntaxiques, indépendance / dépendance des unités syntaxiques. Le contenu des liens syntaxiques, les moyens d'expression des liens syntaxiques, les types de liens syntaxiques trouvés dans la langue roumaine sont analysés. Pour définir le concept et les caractéristiques des types de liens syntaxiques, les critères suivants sont appliqués: la valeur des unités syntaxiques qui forment une certaine relation syntaxique; plan de communication, qui comprend les unités, le degré d'interaction unités qui ont conclu une relation, l'influence de la nature de la connexion sur la manifestation des fonctions syntaxiques., Статья посвящена комплексному исследованию структуры, семантики и прагматики синтаксических связей на материале румынского языка. Рассмотрены теоретические положения, которые являются исходными в изучении синтаксических связей: проблемы определения синтаксических связей, «содержание» и «форма» всинтаксисе, синтаксические единицы, независимость / зависимость синтаксических единиц. Проанализированы содержание синтаксических связей, средства выражения синтаксических связей, типы синтаксических связей, обнаруженные в румынском языке. Для определения понятия и характеристики типы синтаксических связей применены следующие критерии: значение синтаксических единиц, которые формируют определенную синтаксическую связь; коммуникативный план, к которому относятся единицы, степень взаимодействия единиц, вступившие в связь, влияние характера связи на проявление синтаксических функций.

The article discusses current issues of linguistics with a person in the center of events. Underlined that in the center of modern linguistic research is a Person – active speech personality. The problem of choosing optimal variant of syntactic units are examined by the speeker due to extralingual factors. These include communicative intent, intentions and speech experience of the author, the situation of communication, especially interlocutor and so on. For successful communication must take into account the mobility of the language system, which opens up the opportunity of using constructions – simple and complex sentences, provides informative speech, stylistic diversity, expressiveness. Research nominations syntactic variance problem is related to the creative aspect of grammar in general. The role of the speaker as the author of expression is extraordinary, because the selection of sentence structure and method of nomination depends on the communicative competence, knowledge and ability to work .The author should consider informative value of each component of the phrase because the parts of the sentence perform different communicative role. The choice of syntactic structure "tells" to other participants of communication, which is the type of relationship topical in particular "world view" of the speaker: a) between members of the situation or b) between the situations of reality, or c) between communicative unequal situations d) between the giving situation and speaker . During the communication sentence can increase information potential for the help of the secondary part of the sentence and complicating constructions. They are interpreted as grammatical and lexical actualizators. They collect semantic of predicative part of complex and co-ordinated sentences and identify the trend to economy of language features, the ability to re-form syntax links. In the article the central and peripheral phenomena is underlined and analyzed mandatory and discretionary syntax options, shown tendencies of differentiation and integration capabilities. Stated that complex of variant syntactic units represents the richness of the Ukrainian language considering of its national specificity., L'article traite du problème de choisir la variante optimale du haut-parleur d'unités syntaxiques, en prenant en compte extra-facteurs qui influent sur la situation de communication dans le but de la réalisation des intentions de l'auteur. Pour une communication réussie doit tenir compte de la dynamique du système linguistique, impliquant l'utilisation de modèles de variantes - simple (.. En t h et compliqué) et des phrases complexes, ce qui nous permet de donner une saturation de la parole d'information, la diversité stylistique, discours expressif., В статье рассмотрена проблема выбора говорящим оптимального варианта синтаксических единиц с учетом экстралингвистических факторов, влияющих на обстановку общения с целью реализации авторских интенций. Для успешной коммуникации необходимо учитывать динамизм языковой системы, предполагающей возможность использования вариативных конструкций – простых (в т. ч. и осложненных) и сложных предложений, что позволяет придать речи информативной насыщенности, стилистического разнообразия, экспрессивности речи., У статті розглянута проблема вибору мовцем оптимального варіанту синтаксичних одиниць з урахуванням екстралінгвістичних чинників, що впливають на обстановку спілкування з метою реалізації авторських інтенцій. Для успішної комунікації необхідно враховувати динамізм мовної системи, яка передбачає можливість використання варіативних конструкцій - простих (в т. Ч. І ускладнених) і складних речень, що дозволяє надати мові інформативній насиченості, стилістичного розмаїття, експресивності мови.

The goal of this study is to further corroborate a hypothesized population parameter for the frequencies of social presence versus the sum of teaching presence and cognitive presence as defined by the community of inquiry model in higher education asynchronous course forums. This parameter has been found across five variables: academic institution (distance university vs. campus-based college), academic discipline (exact sciences vs. humanities), academic level (graduate vs. undergraduate), course level (introduction vs. regular vs. advanced), and course size (small vs. medium vs. large), that is, the number of students enrolled. To date, the quantitative content analyses have been carried out using the syntactic unit of message. In an attempt to further establish the parameter’s goodness-of-fit, it is now tested across two different syntactic units, message versus sentence. To do so, the same three-week segments from 15 Open University undergraduate course forums (10 from humanities and five from exact sciences) were analyzed twice—once by the unit message and once by the unit sentence. We found that the hypothesized parameter remained viable when the unit of analysis is the sentence. We also found that the choice of syntactic unit is indeed a critical factor that determines the “content” of the transcript and its inferred meaning.

Dans cet article, nous nous proposons d’aborder l’épineuse question de la frontière entre la phrase et le texte à travers l’exemple des regroupements de constructions verbales. Plus spécifiquement, nous essayons de savoir dans quels cas il faut considérer qu’il s’agit d’un regroupement de nature syntaxique. Pour y répondre, nous détaillons en priorité les critères de syntaxe interne et externe sur lesquels nous basons notre analyse et qui nous permettent d’élaborer une typologie des regroupements. Toutefois, étant donné la complexité de la tâche, notre typologie posera essentiellement les principes généraux, chaque construction méritant une description approfondie. This paper questions the frontier between grammatical relations and discourse relations, by taking examples of verbal clause sequences, mostly drawn from spoken French corpora. More specifically, we try to analyse in which cases such combinations can be given a truly syntactic status. In order to elaborate our typology, we make a distinction between two kinds of criteria: those based on internal syntax and those based on external syntax. However, our typology will remain very general because of the difficulty of the task. In fact, every construction should be subject to a precise description.

У статті розглянуто категорію валентності віддієслівних та відприкметникових іменників на тлі дериваційних процесів, проаналізовано стан вивчення та основні напрями дослідження цієї проблеми на сучасному етапі, зосереджено увагу на валентному потенціалі вторинних субстантивів, засвідчених у драматичних творах Лесі Українки. In this article the category of the valence of the verbal and adjective nouns as a base of the derivative processes was considered, the state of the studying and the main trends of the investigation of this problem on the modern stage was analyzed, the attention to the valence potential of the another substances in the Lesia Ukrainka’s plays was concentrated.

У статті розглядається семантичний арсенал конструкцій з прийменником «на». Подається характеристика їх функціонування як вторинних предикатних синтаксем. Наводяться приклади вживання конструкцій як адвербіальних, атрибутивних і модальних синтаксем.The article concerns the problem of semantic arsenal of constructions with preposition «на». Its ability of usage in the sentence as the syntactic units is characterized. The examples of the functioning of this construction as adverbial attributive and modal syntaxems are given. Гандзюк Олександра Михайлівна - канд. філол. наук, доцент кафедри української мови Східноєвропейського національного університету ім. Лесі Українки

[Resumo] Consciente da dificultade dos temas que se tratan neste traballo, tanto pola súa amplitude como polas controversias suscitadas no estudo da sintaxe moderna, pareceume adecuado tocar só algúns aspectos fundamentais que atinxen á problemática da fixación das unidades principais e os seus subtipos, así como á complexidade das relacións e funcións sintácticas que operan nesas unidades. O obxectivo non é, pois, elaborar un minitratado de sintaxe, aínda que considero que non está de máis identificar os tipos de relacións, de unidades e de funcións sintácticas con que imos traballar, como paso previo a calquera precisión. [Abstract] Being conscious of the difficulty regarding the topics which we deal with in this work, both for its wideness and for the controversies which when studying modern syntax, I thought convenient to study only a few basic aspects which affect the problem of defining the main units and its subtypes as well as the complexity of the syntactic relations and functions which work in these units. The aim is not, therefore, to elaborate a small volume on syntax, while I consider it is not completely out of the question to identify the syntactic relation types, units and functions which we are going to work, with as a step previous to any accuracy.