Typology of Functionality in the Syntax: Tiered Dimensions and Regularities of the Analysis

Abstract.

FUNCTIONAL CATEGORICAL NUMBER OF NOUNS: TYPOLOGY AND PARAMETERS

Anatoliy Zahnitko

Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics, Donetsk National University, Donetsk, Ukraine

Available 17 November 2011

Abstract

Relevance

In the modern linguistics the studies which are targeted to the considering the peculiarities of the language levelsinteraction become more and more actual (N. Arutyunova, H. Baylon, O. Bondarko, S. Vazhnyk, I. Vykhovanets, K. Gorodenska, M. Johnson, G. Klayber, J. Lakoff, V. Evans, K. Mignot, A. Mikhnevich, O. Paducheva, L. Popovych, O. Seliverstova, N. Slyusareva, V. Khrakovskyy, V. Yartseva and others), that makes it possible to consider the languagesystem as a holistic one within which the balance of its components with the availability of the appropriate regulating mechanisms guarantees its relative stability, self-organization and development. The interpretation of the language levels reflects the ways of their interenrichment and creation the functional-semantic paradigms of theses or these forms. The definition of the functional significance of the corresponding forms is especially important. Such functions cause the interparts-of-speech transformations, on the one hand, and the innerparts-of-speech transformations (the intercase (the noun), intertense and interperson (the verb), etc.). All these facts condition the relevance of the proposed analysis.

Purpose

The main purpose of the research is the definition of the whole range of the functions in the syntactic system with thedetermination of the status of each of the defined functions.

Tasks

In this regard, it is motivated to solve such problems: 1) to characterize the inventory of the functions in the modern syntax with the consistent distinction of the aspects of syntactic units; 2) to find out the correlation of the syntactic functions interacting with the structural and semantic ones; 3) to deduce the communicative functionality in the syntax with the differentiation its significance in the formal-grammatical, semantic-syntactical, properly-actual, pragmatic and other aspects.

Novelty

The novelty of the analysis which is done is conditioned by the consideration of the whole range of the functions in thesyntax as a system, each component is correlated with the appropriate aspects of the syntactic units.

Theoretical value

The theoretical value of proposed analysis is motivated by studying the notion of functionality in the syntax and defining the differential features of each of the types of functions in the syntax.

Practical value

The practical significance of the realized consideration is determined by the possibility of using its results in studying the theoretic and functional-categorial grammar, in practice of teaching grammar in the high school and in working out new special courses in the actual problems of the modern linguistics.

Conclusion

In the syntax the notion of the functional identity that includes “the identity of the corresponding surround” as theobligatory feature is connected with the functionality. The functionality makes it possible to: 1) differentiate the types of coordinate constructions (homogeneity: а) functional (малюю кущі і квіти); b) lexical-semantic (розмовляти про студентів і зі студентами); c) communicative (Люблю поезії, але українські); 2) realize the structural peculiarities ofthe coordination, subordination and the patterns of the coordinate and subordinate overlap; 3) define the types of thecoordination (the coordination of the sentences, coordination of the parts of the sentence, coordination of the sentence andthe part of the sentence) and subordination; 4) determine the conditions of interchanges in the syntax; 5) diagnose thesymmetry of the predicates; 6) descript the contexts of the general compatibility of the parts of the sentence and namely the compatibility of the coordinate and subordinate parts of the sentence; 7) find out the communicative structure of the sentence with the investigation of its theme-rheme division significance; 8) detect the sentence communicative intentions and the functional perspective of it in the text.

Perspective

It is perspective to research the correlation of the functionality in the syntax and morphology and also to define thefeatures of the manifestation of diagnosed functions in the syntax in the languages of one system and the languages of different systems.

Research highlights

► It is analyzed the functionality in the syntax with the definition of its main qualifying and classification features and differentiation the structural, semantic (determinacy / indeterminacy), positional, linear functions. ► It is given the characteristic of the status of these functions in the realization of the categorical sentence semantics. ► It is found out that the functionality is the derivative in generally meaning of the function. ► It is thoroughly analyzed the structural functionality with the differentiation of the specification levels of the certain inner-sentence components-structurers.

► It is actualized that the positional and linear functions are manifested in the organization of the certain syntactic position (integral / dissected) and sentence generally, at the same time, it is differentiated the semantically filled and semantically empty inner-sentence linear realizations. ► It is defined the directions of the interaction of the semantic, positional and linear functions and described the status of the formalization function (specification) of the syntactic word in the regular filling by it the corresponding syntactic position and transformation of the status role into the core one, subordinated, co-realized, equal-functional, etc. ► It is disclosed the connection of the functionality in the syntax with the notion of the functional equality which includes as the obligatory feature “the equality of the appropriate surround” and the qualification by means of it the status role of the inner-sentence component.

Keywords: function, linear function, positional function, structural function, semantic function.

References

Arno, A. & Lanslo, K. (1990). Vseobshhaja racional'naja grammatika (Grammatika Por-Rojalja). Moskva: Progress.

Batsevych, F. S. (2012). Implitsytna informatsiya u vyslovlennyakh i dyskursyvni slova. Movoznavstvo, 2012, 5, 3-13.

Vykhovanets', I. R. (1992). Narysy z funktsional'noho syntaksysu. Kyyiv: Naukova dumka.

Vinogradov, V. V. (1986). Grammaticheskoe uchenie o slove. Moskva: Vysshaja shkola.

Vsevolodova, M. V. (2000). Teorija funkcional'no-kommunikativnogo sintaksisa. Moskva: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta.

Haydegger, M. (2007). Dorohoyu do movy. L'viv: Litopys.

Gak, V. G. (2000). Teoreticheskaja grammatika francuzskogo jazyka. Moskva: Dobrosvet.

Horpynych, V. O. (2004). Morfolohiya ukrayins'koyi movy. Kyyiv: VTs "Akademiya".

Gusserl', Je. (2001). Logicheskie issledovanija. Sobranie pochinenij. Moskva: Gnozis; Dom intelektual'noj knigi.

Zahnitko, A. (2011). Teoretychna hramatyka ukrayins'koyi movy: morfolohiya, syntaksys. Donets'k : TOV "VKF “BAO”".

Zolotova, G. A. (2010). Kommunikativnyj sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Moskva: KomKniga.

Mustajoki, A. (2006). Teorija funkcional'nogo sintaksisa. Ot semanticheskih struktur k jazykovym strukturam. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.

Nedev, I. (1992). Sintaksis na s"vremennija b"lgarskija knizhoven ezik. Sofija: Izd-vo Bolgarskoj AN.

Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij, D. N. (1912). Sintaksis russkogo jazyka. SPb.: Tipografija M. M. Stasjulevicha.

Ostin, Dzh. (1986). Slovo kak dejstvie. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Teorija rechevyh aktov. M.: Progress, XVII, 22-130.

Popov, K. (1963). S"vremenen b"lgarski ezik. Sintaksis. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.

Potebnja, A. A. (1958). Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike. M.: Uchpedgiz.

Radeva, P. (2009). Zapiski po sintaksis na s"vremennija b"lgarski knizhoven ezik. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodij”.

Sannikov, V. Z. (2008). Russkij sintaksis v semantiko-pragmaticheskom prostranstve. M.: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.

Simiћ, R. & Jovanoviћ, J. (2007). Mala srpska gramatika. Beograd: Izdavachi JASEN.

Sovremennyj russkij jazyk, (1989). Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. M.: Vysshaja shkola.

Stanojchiћ, Zh. & Popoviћ, Љ. (2008). Gramatika srpskogo jezika. Beograd: Zavod za uџbenike.

Uryson, E. V. (2010).Sostavnoj sojuz ili sochetanie slov: dazhe esli pod semanticheskim mikroskopom. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 30-59.

Jurchenko, V. S. (2005). Prostoe predlozhenie v sovremennom russkom jazyke: dvusostavnoe imennoe, odnosostavnoe glagol'noe, odnosostavnoe imennoe. M.: KomKniga.

Urbańczyk, S. & Kucaly, M. (1999). Encyklopedia języka polskiego. Kraków: Wyd-wo Zakład Narodowyim.

Grzegorczykowa, R. (2007). Wstęp do językoznawstwa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Mluvnice češtiny, (1987). Mluvnice češtiny. Praha: Československá akademie věd.

Nagórko, A. (1969). Zarys gramatyki polskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo naukowe PAN.

Pisarkowa, K. (1965). Predykatywność określeń w polskim zdaniu. Wrocław: Wyd-wo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskego.

Correspondence: a.zagnitko@gmail.com

Vitae

Anatoliy P. Zahnitko, Doctor of Philology, Professor, corresponding member of NAS of Ukraine, Head of Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics in Donetsk National University, Dean of Philological Faculty at Donetsk National University. His areas of research interests include functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, comparative linguistics, categorical linguistics, lexicographic linguistics, and text linguistics.

Article.

Anatoliy Zahnitko

УДК 811.161.2=81’36

TYPOLOGY OF FUNCTIONALITY IN THE SYNTAX: TIERED DIMENSIONS AND REGULARITIES OF THE ANALYSIS

It is analyzed the functionality in the syntax with the definition of its main qualifying and classification features and differentiation the structural, semantic (determinacy / indeterminacy), positional, linear functions. It is given the characteristic of the status of these functions in the realization of the categorical sentence semantics. It is found out that the functionality is the derivative in generally meaning of the function. It is thoroughly analyzed the structural functionality with the differentiation of the specification levels of the certain inner-sentence components-structurers.

It is actualized that the positional and linear functions are manifested in the organization of the certain syntactic position (integral / dissected) and sentence generally, at the same time, it is differentiated the semantically filled and semantically empty inner-sentence linear realizations. It is defined the directions of the interaction of the semantic, positional and linear functions and described the status of the formalization function (specification) of the syntactic word in the regular filling by it the corresponding syntactic position and transformation of the status role into the core one, subordinated, co-realized, equal-functional, etc. It is disclosed the connection of the functionality in the syntax with the notion of the functional equality which includes as the obligatory feature “the equality of the appropriate surround” and the qualification by means of it the status role of the inner-sentence component.

Keywords: function, linear function, positional function, structural function, semantic function.

In the modern linguistics the studies which are targeted to the considering the peculiarities of the language levelsinteraction become more and more actual (N. Arutyunova, H. Baylon, O. Bondarko, S. Vazhnyk, I. Vykhovanets, K. Gorodenska, M. Johnson, G. Klayber, J. Lakoff, V. Evans, K. Mignot, A. Mikhnevich, O. Paducheva, L. Popovych, O. Seliverstova, N. Slyusareva, V. Khrakovskyy, V. Yartseva and others), that makes it possible to consider thelanguage system as a holistic one within which the balance of its components with the availability of the appropriate regulating mechanisms guarantees its relative stability, self-organization and development. The interpretation of the language levels reflects the ways of their interenrichment and creation the functional-semantic paradigms of theses or these forms. The definition of the functional significance of the corresponding forms is especially important. Such functions cause the interparts-of-speech transformations, on the one hand, and the innerparts-of-speech transformations (the intercase (the noun), intertense and interperson (the verb), etc.). All these facts condition the relevance of the proposed analysis.

The main aim of the research is the definition of the whole range of the functions in the syntactic system with thedetermination of the status of each of the defined functions. In this regard, it is motivated to solve such problems: 1) to characterize the inventory of the functions in the modern syntax with the consistent distinction of the aspects of syntactic units; 2) to find out the correlation of the syntactic functions interacting with the structural and semantic ones; 3) to deduce the communicative functionality in the syntax with the differentiation its significance in the formal-grammatical, semantic-syntactical, properly-actual, pragmatic and other aspects.

1. The functionality in the syntax: the categories of the sentence semantics and the levels of thesentence. The analysis of the functionality in the syntax is directed at the realization of the category semantics of thesentence which includes 1) the semantic determinacy / indeterminacy; 2) the linear (lineary) order (compare: [Арно, Лансло 1990: 190-195]); 3) the positional content; 4) the formal combinability (the forms of the syntactic relation) and is correlated with the formal-grammatical, semantic-syntactical, properly-semantic and communicative levels of the sentence and the relevant categories. The categoriсal semantics of the sentence can be considered only with regard to the whole its content in integrity.The novelty of the analysis which is done is conditioned by the consideration of thewhole range of the functions in the syntax as a system, each component is correlated with the appropriate aspects of the syntactic units. The theoretic value of proposed analysis is motivated by studying the notion of functionality in the syntax and defining the differential features of each of the types of functions in the syntax. The practical significance of the realized consideration is determined by the possibility of using its results in studying the theoretic and functional-categorial grammar, in practice of teaching grammar in the high school and in working out new special courses in the actual problems of the modern linguistics.

The modern approaches to the Slavonic sentence analysis are concentrated in the parameters: 1) the categoriesof verity (affirmative / negative); 2) the categories of the communicative aim (narrative / interrogative / imperative / optative); 3) the categories of the informativeness (the theme-rheme actual division); 4) the categories of theemotiveness with the inner-categorial realization of the affectiveness (exclamation / non-exclamation) taking intoaccount the relevant aspects – formal-grammatical (properly-syntactic), linear (the order of the elements on the axis oftheirs combinability), semantic-syntactical (the status roles of the participants), semantic (properly-semantic (thestructure of the situation)), communicative (logical-communicative (the actual division)), emotional-expressive (the subjective speaker’s intentions), discourse-communicative (the situational parameters of the motivation), cognitive-model (the ability to express the deep structure of the thought, according to the stable model of the virtual subject and the virtual predicate combination), pragmatic (the situational «dive») make it possible to find out the inner- and the outer-sentence motivation of each of the sentence components, its functional significance. The qualifying parameters ofthe stages of the sentence analysis from the structural-syntactic up to the linear one – semantic – logical-communicative – emotional-expressive – discourse-communicative – cognitive-model – pragmatic outline the maintransitions from the formal structure to the gradual manifestation of all possible contents and interpretations of the sentence, the levels of the deep semantics of each of the components.

Each level of the sentence has the set of categories integrally expressing its characteristic features. Thecategorical semantics of the sentence can be considered at the all levels of it. Today the well-researched one is theanalysis of the categorial semantics of the sentence through the semantic-syntactic aspect of its investigating thefunctional and semantic invariants / variants of the elementary unit of this level – the syntaxeme. The analysis of the functionality of the sentence component must be based on: 1) the finding out the forms of its syntactic relation and the peculiarities of the structure (simple / complex or simple / complex / compiled); 2) the determination of its inner-sentence linear position (preposition, postposition, initial / final position); 3) the characteristics of the situationally actual significance of the element (the theme component, the rheme formant, etc.), and so on. The categorial integrity of thesentence is reached by the all components unity because of: а) its nomination the holistic situation; b) expressing the holistic thought; c) integral communicative aim; d) the linear continuity, etc. At the same time, the sentence is divided at each of the levels because it contains some components as the realization of the certain function.

The defining feature of the sentence as the message is the predicativity as the grammatical realization of the predication. In the predicative aspect the existence of the subject and the relation between the characteristic and subject are defined by the very act of thought (the act of predication). The predication relation is giving some features to the subject by the certain act of thought and speech. The latter is realized in the relation between the subject and the predicate. In the abstract-system dimension in order to be the actualized speech unity (phrase) the sentence mustdefine described fact as for the time of messaging and the speaker’s position (after V. Gakh) [Гак 2000: 543]), which is provided by the categories of tense and modality as the basic predication categories (with the category of person). Thelogical (combination of the two elements of thought: subject and predicate), denotative (semantic: the interrelation withthe certain situation), formal-syntactic (the correlation of the subject and the predicate) approaches to the interpretationof the predication make it possible to find out the symmetry / asymmetry of these three aspects and define thestructural, semantic and other kinds of such symmetry / asymmetry.

2. The functional manifestation of the sentence is easily deduced not only in the particular sentence ((1) Діти читають книгу – at the formal-grammatical level (the predicative relation in the form of coordination), linear-positional (the antecedence to the predicate, the left-sided position), semantic-syntactical (subject), communicative (theme), properly-semantic (agent) and other levels is inherent for the word form діти), but in all typologically relative ones. The interpretation of the component of the sentence functional status in different aspects makes it possible to figure out the symmetry / asymmetry of the form and semantics. The linear subject position can stand as the semantics of: а) the subject ((2) Студенти йдуть на концерт (symmetry)); b) the addressee ((3) Діти слухають казку (the primary asymmetry); c) the instrument ((4) Вітер знищив урожай пшениці (symmetry ↔ asymmetry)) and others. The left-sided verb-predicate intentions condition the inner variation within each of the semantic linear-subjective positionfunctions, cf.: (5) Спортсмен біжить (the subject of the action); (6) Дитина спить (the subject of the state); (7) Дерева ростуть (the subject of the process); (8) Син поважає батька (the subject of the relation), etc. Thecrossing and the juxtaposition of some intentions (linear-positional) as to the others (semantic-syntactical, properly-semantic, etc.) motivates the necessity of their differentiation in the syntactic analysis which is especially easy toobserve on the ground of intersentence transformations and the realization of the syntactic synonimity.

The sentence modifications can be considered at the different sentence levels with the taking into account thecorresponding categorical semantics. The analysis of such modifications just at the grammatical and semantic-syntactical levels makes it possible to reveal the patterns of the verbal two-member sentences’ transformations into thenominal two-member ones that reflect the direction of the syntactic derivation which is realized in the correspondingstructural schemes: (9) Спортсмен бився відважно → Спортсмен був відважним. The syntactic derivation is on the grammatical level of the sentence, including unlimited number of the concrete sentences. The peculiarity of thesyntactic derivation is in that fact that in the derived one (without taking into account the derivational stages) the sentence semantic category is vague, its degree depends upon the derivation increment. The marginal manifestation is partial / full leveling of the sentence categorical semantics: Ukr. (10) Хлопець дивився пильно → Хлопець був пильним; Rus. (11) Парень смотрел внимательно → Парень был внимательным; Czech. (12) Ten chlapvypadal pozorné → Ten chlap byl pozorný, etc. The post-verbal part of the sentence [Юрченко 2005: 195] having inthe two-member verbal sentence the status of the qualifier of the action in the nominal two-member sentence has the status of the nominal part of the predicate. In the first sentence there is the categorical dynamic, in the second one – static. The change of the linear-positional function of the post-verbal part of the sentence because of the syntactic derivation providing its semantics saving predetermined the change of the whole categorical semantics of the sentence – from the dynamic to the static one (the post-verbal linear position of the optional component of the structural scheme with the function of the adverbial modifier → the nominal part of the compound predicate as the obligatory component of the structural scheme).

The reverse process is realized in the syntactic derivation which includes the general typological model of thetransformation “the two-member nominal sentence → the two-member verbal sentence”: in the first one there is thedissected expression of the modality and predication, and in the last one – the modality and predication are holistic, cf.: Ukr. (13) Хлопець був (працював) лікарем → Хлопець лікарював; Rus. (14) Парень был (работал) врачем → Парень врачевал; Czech (15) Ten chlap byl lékař → Ten chlap byl lékaře.

3. The linear-positional functionality. The functionality is derived in its general meaning from the functionwhich includes the realizations of the certain form in its semantic significance: (16) М’яч (← the instrumental subject (instrumentive) + the subject of the active action + conditioned by valency component – the semantic function is complicated by the position (syncretism)) зробив коло навколо стадіону. Such derived sentence formations prove thepositional modification of the sentence component and the configuration owing to which it sets the linear-subjectposition with the appropriate structural realization and, at the same time, secondary-primary semantic potential. In such kind of transformations the defining feature is the change of the linear-positional function, after which the formal-semantic asymmetry is actualized.

Generally, position (Lat. position – put, set) – is the word form possibility to set the certain position in the sentence, namely the appropriate formal and meaning features are inherent in the word form: (17) Дитині приємно бачити своїх батьків (дитині – the word form expresses the subject in the dative), or the specification of the syntactic function in the models of sentences and word-combinations. In the model-positional aspect it is differentiated such inner-sentence positions as: 1) of the predicated component; 2) of the predicating component; 3) the model modifier, and so on; and in the word-combinations, according to the morphological realization of the core component: 1) near-verbal; 2) near-substantive; 3) near-adjective; 4) near-adverbial modifier. In accordance with these positions it isdifferentiated the functions: the function of predication, of modifier, etc. (the model-positional aspect); the near-verbal, the near-substantive, and so on (word-combinations). At the same time, in the inner-sentence area it should bedifferentiated the positional functions as for: а) the linearity: initial, final, etc. (the order of the components); b) the formalrealization: specialized, non-specialized (the peculiarities of the realization); c) the semantic significance: subjective, objective, and so on; d) the direction (as for the predicate) – left-sided or right-sided, etc.; e) as for the number of elements: one-, two- and more elements, etc. The linear-positional function is the component status on the sentence syntagmatic axle.

One of the manifestations of the linear-positional function significance of the sentence component is the expansion of the position realization from one- to two-, three-, four-member, in which the linear position interacts with the structural integrity. The latter mostly correlates with the semantic coherence. The specific feature of the structuralintegrity is the formal-grammatical determination of the second content component by the top first one: відчути радість (= радіти / зрадіти) ((18) Дівчина відчула радість від зустрічі з подругою) – and the semanticdomination of the second component over the first one with saving its semantics in the transformations. At the sametime, the structural function of the sentence component can be enough for the formal predicative realization, theobstacle to the sterling status is semantic scantiness as the post-verbal component semantically fill the dissectedsyntactic position: (19) “Надійшла важлива і вчасна пропозиція передову сьогоднішнього номера вивісити на дошку кращих матеріалів і сплатити автору підвищений гонорар”, – безсторонньо повторив Загатний (V. Drozd) (the dissected auxiliary component – the verb-support + predicative noun пропозиція); (20) Хлопчик мріяв про поїздку / (21) Хлопчик мріяв поїхати і (22) Потім я відчувала велику втому і через те начебто відпрошувалася від розмови, вголос цмокаючи трубку й посилаючи повітряне «па-па» невидимому співрозмовникові (М. Matios) → *Потім я втомилася і через те начебто відпрошувалася від розмови, вголос цмокаючи трубку й посилаючи повітряне “па-па” невидимому співрозмовникові (мріяв – autosemantic andвідчувала – synsemantic); (23) ...І ведуть вони між собою тиху-таємну розмову: чутно тільки шелест жита, травиці.... (Panas Мyrnyy) → *І розмовляють вони між собою тихо-таємно: чутно тільки шелест жита, травиці.... (розмовляють – autosemantic and ведуть – synsemantic). In the structural aspect (structural schemes, models, etc.) it should be reflected maximally the patterns of the semantic integrity of the corresponding linearlydissected components.

The linear-positional function is internally differentiated onto three types: а) syntagmatic; b) paradigmatic; c) syntagma-paradigmatic. The first one is realized in the orderliness of the sentence components one after anotherwhich is fully realized in the model “attribute + the name of the subject (the core component)”: Ukr. (24) Густа вода спливає з гребель… (B.‑І. Antonych); Czech (25) Teď čtu nový roman ʽТепер я читаю новий романʼ. The secondtype is typical of the realization of the right-sided strong-governmented / half-strong-governmented / weak-governmented near-verbal part of the sentence: its semantics performs the element of the core component of semanticstructure: Ukr. (26) Батьківщина свого сина кличе / найпростішим, неповторним, вічним словом (B.‑І. Antonych) (сина – strong-governmented); Czech (27) Milujeme svou vlast ʽМи любимо свою вітчизнуʼ. The latter type is fullyrepresented in the subject and predicate of the sentence where the positional predicate manifestation is agreed with thesubject form and the left-sided component is formally determined by the predicate semantics: (28) Ukr. Танцюють татуйовані дівчата на майдані мрії… (B.‑І. Antonych); Czech (29) Bratr už chodí do školy ʽБрат уже ходить до школиʼ. These three analyzed types of the positional-linear function cross with the structural ones (the first one – theadverbial-subordinated (agreement); the second one – the adverbial-subordinated (government); the third one – predicative (coordination)). The peculiarity of the syntagma-paradigmatic type is the possibility of its realization in: а) purely positional syntagmacy of the left-sided component and its intermanifestation with the other component of thegrammatical base of the sentence: (30) Журавлине «кру-кру» линуло прощально (B. Lepkyy); b) the positionaljuxtaposition of two components: (31) Любити Вітчизну – служити усіма силами; c) the positional predication: (32) Раптом щось під ногами трісь (М. Іvchenko).

The positional-linear function clearly comes out in the organization of the certain syntactical position (full / dissected) and sentence in general. The first one is observed in the significance of the obligator adverbial modifiers and free closing of the near-sentence elements: (33) Студенти розташувалися в аудиторії (valence conditioned component) / (34) В аудиторії лунала музика (the closed near-sentence element). The positional-linear functiondetermines the categorical semantics of the word: (35) Хай добрим буде ваш славний день (the particle) / (36) Хай вітер і негода бушують скрізь, будемо впевнено прямувати до своєї мети (conjunction). The interaction of thesemantic and positional-linear functions makes it possible to find out the models of repeat / non-repeat of theprepositions ((37) Щодо мене і щодо нього допущена помилка), conjunctions (coordination, subordination), particles (the functional typology), etc. The function of the formalization (specialization) of the syntactic word is observed in itsregular filling the appropriate syntactic position and transformating the status role into the core or subordinated role, intermanifestated or of equal functions, etc.

4. The typological manifestation of the semantic functionality. Within the semantic function the outside manifestation of its zero significance is the pleonasm, within which the right-sided component is just structurally and linearly determined: (38) Я сто[j-у] на узліссі (the semantic repeat – я ↔ /у/, whereas the analytical component я is the affix).

The semantic function correlates with the patterns of the typological situations’ structuring and as the result it iseasy to separate the primary and secondary semantic functions and figure out the typologies of the semantic roles and semantic predicates.

The semantic function directly correlates with the certain element distribution which is easily observed on: 1) thedifferentiating its inner-sentence status role: (39) Правда моя чистіша за джерельну воду (V. Mysyk) (правда – thesubjesct (the double-sided predicative connection) and (40) Правда, світлішим стало небо (М. Stelmah) (the modalconnection); 2) its distributive: а) (41) Якщо син приїхав вчора, то він уже побачив викошене сіно (Gr. Tyutyunnyk) (якщо – hypothetical); (42) Василько щасливий, якщо поливає свою городину (V. Pidmohylnyy) (якщо (= коли) – repeat); b) (43) Якщо йшов дощ, косарі перевертали покоси (The Silsky visti. – 2010. – 12.06) (якщо – thegeneralization as the contextually conditioned modification of the якщо – hypothetity); c) (44) Якщо в нього батько захворів, то він може оформити вільне відвідування (якщо – the state of things); d) (45) Якщо хлопці встигли на автобус, вони уже вдома (якщо – the probability) and (46) Якщо хлопці уже вдома, вони встигли на автобус (якщо – hypothesis + mental conclusion (the contextually conditioned modification), namely quasiconversive of thehypothetity). Besides, it can be added: e) illocutionary meaning якщо (after J. Ostin [Остин 1986: 78-82]): (47) Якщо захочеш їсти, в холодильнику є м’ясо) and f) its modus fixing in the row of constructions: (48) Якщо вірити пліткам, то полк мав вирішити цієї ночі (Y. Gashek) (якщо – the special insertion); also g) comparing semantics: (49) Якщо кочівники займались тваринництвом, то осілі народи рано досягли високої культури землеробства (look also: [Урысон 2010: 37]), compare the figuring out the semantics of the particle таки in different discourse [Бацевич 2012: 9]. The typological manifestations of the semantic functions should be done with taking intoconsideration the semantic structure of the sentence and the corresponding contexts. The sentence essence in alllanguages is in the deployment of the subject characteristic.

The kernel of the primary propositional semantics consists of the elementary non-derived sentences and within the semantically non-elementary simple sentence such status is given to the first peripheral component – the attribute (the immediate feature). It is anticipating concerning the subject: (50) Червона троянда цвіте. The predicativestructure develops in another direction: the speaker’s intention actualize the time-space aspect of the subject and its connection with the other subject – object. Generally, the analyzed sentence includes: the qualitative (the primary subject) + the locative + the temporative + the object. The formal non-manifestation of the certain component anywaydoes not mean its absence as the manifestation can be implicit, compare: (51) Квіти цвітуть (= the qualitative + the processual temporative (the Present Tense) + the locative (zero). The realization of the temporative and locative isconditioned by the existence of the speaker who regenerates the utterance in the time-space (Е. Gusserl [Гуссерль 2001: 378], М. Heidegger [Гайдеґґер 2007: 87]), because the subject is built-in into the irreversible time character.

The definition of the typological semantic functions realizations (the semantic roles of the arguments (agents), semantic types of predicates, etc.) is possible just under the condition of consistent figuring out the correlation of thesentence structure with the corresponding typological situation. The reality exists in three main kinds: the real world, the virtual (artificial real) world, the inner world (look also: [Серебренников 1983: 285-291]). Usually it is enough the realworld which is the most obvious: (52) Учні садили дерева / (53) На вулиці сніжить / (54) Білка стрибала з дерева на дерево / (55) Діти ліпили іграшки з пластиліну. The real world with all its awareness becomes the subject ofconversation only if it is perceived and the event is actualized. If (54) Білка стрибала з дерева на дерево and it is not observed by the speaker the subject of the conversation cannot exist and that’s why does not get the language expression. At the same time, those that is wordly expressed is not always perceived by the speaker properly but is connected with his interpretation of some information he has heard or read: (56) Подумати тільки, який торнадопронісся у штаті Колорадо (США).

The virtual world is constructed with the human created worlds (after А. Мustaiokу [Мустайоки 2006: 32]), whichare not real but similar to it and are its indirect copies in some aspects. In the virtual world such categories aredistinguished: 1) the technic world; 2) the world of dreams ((57) Мріялось про гарний відпочинок на березі моря (А. Dimarov)); 3) the world of sleep dreams ((58) Василько знову бачив сон, як його омріяний город знищують (V. Pidmogilniy)); 4) the world of imagination ((59) Уявилось, як удвох вони йдуть лугом, а запашні трави б’ють своїм запахом у груди (Y. Gutsalo)); 5) the world of wish ((60) Бажалось чогось нового, а не цієї щоденної рутинної редакторської роботи (V. Drozd)); 6) the world of directness ((61) Зайдіть негайно до мене!). Thecreators of the virtual worlds, their unlimited number are: 1) tales; 2) fiction; 3) cinematography; 4) painting; 5) literature, etc. Some figures of the virtual world are canonized: Baba-yaga ‒ Баба-яга, Did Moroz ‒ Дід Мороз, Dracula ‒ Дракула, Tarzan ‒ Тарзан, Ivasyk-Telesyk ‒ Івасик-Телесик, mavka ‒ мавка, rusalka ‒ русалка, gnom ‒ гном, domovyk ‒ домовик, etc. The personages of famous novels, stories, films and series also belong to this group. The special space of the virtual world is represented by the ancient and modern gods and similar to them personificated realities (Zevs ‒ Зевс, Venera ‒ Венера, Neptun ‒ Нептун, Poseydon ‒ Посейдон, Dazhdbog ‒ Даждьбог, Perun ‒ Перун, Lada ‒ Лада, Khaos ‒ Хаос, etc.). «As the agents they <…> can do such actions which people of the real world do not do» [Мустайоки 2006: 29]. There are also the special areas of the virtual world: paradise: (62) Я мов метелик ябілий білий / Як він химерний як він несмілий / Літаю біло у білім сяйві / Лечу для лету летить у рай він (M. Semenko); hell: (63) Смола там в пеклі клекотіла / І грілася все в казанах, / Живиця, сірка, нефть кипіла; / Палав огонь, великий страх! / В смолі сій грішники сиділи / І на огні пеклись, горіли, / Хто, як, за віщо заслужив. / Пером не можна написати, / Не можна і в казках сказати, / Яких було багацько див! (І. Kotlyarevskyy). In thevirtual world it is important to define the typology of situations (the speaker in some cases takes part actively ((58) – (60)), in others – the observer ((62) – (63)) and on this basis to differentiate the functions of the inner-sentence components.

The third world is the internal experiences which is especially essential for the speaker, the experiencer: (64) Мені погано; (65) Петро з Марією дружать. The definition of the semantic functions typology is possible only takinginto consideration the peculiarities of three worlds and the functional significance of their participants in correspondingsituations, with the definition the typological interrelation of the surface and deep levels.

5. The structural functionality is observed in the certain forms specification (the formal-grammatical level): 1) the properly-auxiliary (бути, становити, являти собою), irregularly auxiliary (лишити / лишатися, залишити / залишатися) and potentially auxiliary (зватися, називатися); 2) the concretizers (хлопці → два хлопці); 3) thepostpositional correlation (під’їхати до садиби; наступити на камінь); 4) the structurators of the certain syntacticposition (поїхати з міста до села; потяг від столиці до санаторію).

In the modern linguistic dictionaries and grammars of all Slavonic languages the notion of linking verb, itsfunction appears regular in description and qualification of the sentence structure, in particular, in consideration themain parts of the sentence (cf.: [Вихованець 1992: 45-51]). The notion of linking verb can be in interpreted in the broad and narrow aspect. The broad approach is based on the general understanding of linking (connect) which is in interpretation means “unite, bind” [СУМ, ІІІ: 505]. In this area the statement of O. Potebnya seems to be rather convincing [Потебня 1958: 127-128] which provides that the preposition because of its main features appears the analogy to the linking verbs, whereupon prepositions are “purely links of the object” (Ukr. ходити навколо (чого?) будинку, перестрибнути через (що?) паркан; Rus. ходить около (чего?) дома, перепрыгнуть через (что?) забор; Belorus. (66) Хадзіць вакол (чаго?) дома, пераскочыць праз (што?) плот; Sloven. hoditi okoli (kaj?) hiša,skok čez (kaj?) ograja; Serb. (67) Шетају (шта?) кућа, скочите преко (шта?) ограда; болг. (68) Разхожда (какво?) къща, прескача (какво?) ограда; Czech chodit (co?) dům, skok přes (co?) plot), and after D. Ovsyanyko-Kulikovskiy [Овсянико-Куликовский 1912: 45-56] – prepositions are the parts of the sentence the main purpose of which is to linkthe objects and adverbial modifiers with the other parts of the sentence. In this case, it is identified the structural andsemantic functions. According to the broad approach, the inner-sentence connections include: 1) the prepositions (inthe simple and complex sentences); 2) the conjunctions (in the complex sentence); 3) the verbs (in the simple sentence). According to the narrow interpretation, the notion “linking verb” covers the components which express thelogical relation between the predicate and subject (V. Vinogradov [Виноградов 1986]). The spreading of such interpretation of the link is absolutely motivated by its status in the sentence structure.

The linking verb is the result of the verb desemantization and taking on the properly-grammatical status (the localization in time, modality (mood), aspect, person). The terminological description of the linking verb in the predicate in the Slavonic grammars is mostly adequate – it is qualified as the auxiliary verb (the link from Lat. copula), cf.: in Serbian – копула (спона), копулативни глагол (R. Simych, Y. Yovanovich [Симић, Jовановић 2007: 73-75], J. Stanoychich, L. Popovych [Станоjчић, Поповић 2008]); in Russian – связка, вспомогательный глагол (V. Byeloshapkova [Современный 1989: 457-505], G. Zolotova [Золотова 2010], M. Vsevolodova [Всеволодова 2000]); in Bulagarian – глаголи, чиито форми изпълняват помощна функция в съставно то сказуемо, копулата (the compound nominal predicate) (К. Popov [Попов 1963: 67-75], І. Nedev [Недев 1992: 28-34], P. Radeva [Радева 2009: 32-33]); in Polish – lącznik (copula, spojka), czasownik posiłkowyj (К. Pisarkova, R. Gzhegorchikova [Grzegorczykowa 2007]); in Czech – spona (kopula), sloveso kategoríalno (F. Danesh [Mluvnice 1987: 21-40], S. Zhazha [the same: 673-676], Е. Dvorak [the same: 630-636], P. Karlik [the same: 706-707]), etc., and the generalmodel is given as: copula + nominal near-link predicate ‘копула + іменний призв’язковий предикатив’ (К. Pisarkova [Pisarkowa 1965: 37-41], І. Nedev [Недев 1992], J. Stanoychich, L. Popovych [Станоjчић, Поповић 2008], А. Nagurko [Nagórko 1996: 56-67], etc.). On the purely functional and completed structural principles sometimes the linking verb issingled out as a separate part of speech (V. Vinogradov [Виноградов 1986], V. Gorpynych [Горпинич 2004]), which is based on the purely syntactic criteria.

In the structure of the nominal compound (analytic (І. Nedev [Недев 1992], К. Pisarkova [Pisarkowa 1965: 37-41], Z. Glavsa [Mluvnice 1987: 17, 39, 151])) predicate the linking verb with its differential features of the element of theexistential sentence component includes such realizations: 1) non-categorial (properly-existential): Ukr. бути, являти собою, становити, Czech být / bývat, Serb. jесам / бити with its phase and modal modifications like (69) Ukr. Хлопець хоче бути учителем; Bulg. (70) Момче иска да бъде учител; Czech. (71) Chlapec chcе býtučitelem; Pol. (72) Chłopiec chce być nauczycielem; Bel. (73) Хлопец хоча быць настаўнікам; Slov. (74) Deček hoče biti učitelj (up to 70 modifications in each of the Slavonic languages (compare, for instance, in Slovenian [Dukanovič, Markovič 2005: 35-38], Polish [Encyklopedia języka 1999: 101; Nagórko 1996: 56-67], Czech [Mluvnice 1987: 456-487]); 2) half-categorial (approximately 20 ‒ 25 lexemes and with the phase and modal modifications – up to 170 types) like Ukr. ставати / стати → розпочинати or мусити ставати (nascence or transformation), здаватися / здатися (of demonstration) → розпочинати or мусити здаватися, Pol. stać / być → rozpoczynać, zaczynać / musieć, Slovak stat / je → spustiť або prinútiť stat, Sloven. postati / biti → začetek /prisili biti, Czech. být / bývat → zaćit / chtít být; the number of them is gradually being enlarged with the verbs like відчувати / відчути (себе), користуватися, виглядати in the regular combination with the abstract nouns: відчувати / відчути себе втомленим; виглядати стомленим, користуватися славою; 3) categorial (autosemantic): іти, повернутися (movement) – Serb. ићи, вратити се; Sloven. pojdi, vrnitev; Bulg. отида, връщам се; працювати, служити (activity) – Serb. радити, служити; Sloven. delo, služijo; Bulg. работя, служа; мовити, питати, сказати (speak) – Serb. говорити, питати, сказати / рећи; Sloven. pravijo, vprašati; Bulg. казвам, питам, прехвърлям. The generalmodel of such analytic (dissected) predicate in all Slavonic languages is per se identical, is realized in the basic form asCop_fN in the appropriate structural sentence schemes; sometimes the first component is characterized as V_f (R. Gzhegorchikova [Grzegorczykowa 2007]), emphasizing in this way on its transitional-intermediate status between the auto- and synsemantic verbs. The latter is absolutely motivated taking into consideration the half-categorial and categorial linking verbs.

The first type of the linking verbs (non-categorial) forms the kernel, the second group (half-categorial) is the half-peripheral one as their status of linking verb is out of doubt, at the same time, they can be the autosemantic one in these or these syntagm as: користуватися комп’ютером, etc. The third group represents the periphery. Their linkingverb status is motivated by the range of syntagmatic factors among which the special role has the near-linkcomponent, compare, for instance, among the verbs of movement it usually covers the profession nomination (інженер, хімік, зв’язківець, менеджер, провайдер, etc.), ranks, grades (капітан, майор, доцент, професор, etc.), social conditions / status (бізнесмен, олігарх, etc.). The specific group is the verbs like Ukr. керувати, командувати, вести, ходити, сидіти (Serb. руководити, командовати, управљати, ходити, седети; Pol. kierować, dowodzić, prowadzić, chodzić, siedzieć; Czech. vest / řidit, velet, vest, ošetřovat (after ill people), sedět), which determinate thepresence of the regular near-verbal component. The latter being on the bound between the secondary part of thesentence (object ↔ adverbial modifier) and predicate (after V. Yurchenko [Юрченко 2005]), syntagmatically fills theproperly-verbal component and forms with it the half-phraseological unit: (75) Учений керує аспірантами; (76) Син командує ротою; (77) Донька ходить на лижах. In some languages such derivatives are represented with oneword: Ukr. ходити на лижах – лижувати; Serb. скиjати се; Sloven. smučanje; Pol. *nartach (hypothetically), etc.

6. The communicative functionality is realized in the regularities of gaining the equal status by the certain components through their coordination. The latter does not correlate with the functional (the parts of the sentence with different functions) and lexical-semantic (the parts of the sentence are lexically and semantically heterogeneous) homogeneity [Загнітко 2011: 675-687]. It is the result of the situational significance of this or this component and its getting the communicative coordination. Communicatively homogeneous components form the holistic range (hence the notion of the range). The function is the basis of coordination within simple sentence as the homogeneous elements are those which have the identical syntactic function although the latter should not be qualified in a simplified way or schematically: (78) Микола і Василь любили своїх матерів (V. Drozd) – *Микола любив своїх матерів + *Василь любив своїх матерів. In this case the syntactic function correlating with the syntactic position (the subject) determines the functional equality of two components (Микола і Василь). The semantic synonimity like (79) Микола з Василем любили свої матерів is the signal of the integrity of the word combination Микола з Василем, their equalmanifestation in action and, at the same time, proves the equal-rankity.

7. The functionality and syntactic interchanges. On the semantic and positional-linear functions the maintypes of the syntactic interchanges are based which are mostly conditioned by the lexical noun features (низка, більшість, меншість, частина, etc.) or by the syntactic surround (belonging to the communicative, subordinate construction). To such interchanges belong, first of all: 1) the realizations of the direct object: (80) Художник намалював картину → Художник не намалював картини (the forms of accusative and genitive prove the interchange, the confirmation of which is the possibility of using genitive in the negative constructions: (81) Художник не намалював картину); 2) the equal competiveness of the coordination forms in the constructions like: (82) Більшість працівників поїхали на відпочинок ↔ Більшість працівників поїхала на відпочинок, compare also: Більшість працівників поїхало на відпочинок; 3) the forms of the subject coordination in the commutative orcoordinate construction: (83) Марійка (Sing., f.) пішла, but (84) Марійка (Sing., f.) і Петрик (Sing., m.) пішли (Pl.); (85) Марійка (Sing., f.) з Петриком пішли (Pl.); 4) the realizations of the duplexive in the co-predicative constructions: (86) Оксанка (Sing., f.) прибіжить схвильована / схвильованою (Sing., f.); (87) Василько (Sing., m.) прибіжить схвильований / схвильованим (Sing., m.); but (88) Оксанка (Sing., f.) та Василько (Sing., m.) прибіжать схвильовані / схвильованими (Pl.); (89) Оксанка (Sing., f.) з Васильком прибіжать схвильовані / схвильованими (Pl.); 5) the constructions with “the indirect objects” which require the coordination of arguments: (90) Батько вважав сина (Sing., m.) розумним; (91) Батько вважав доньку (Sing., f.) розумною → Батько вважав сина (Sing., f.) й доньку розумними (Pl.) (cf.: [Санников 2008: 79]).

The generalizations and conclusions. In the syntax the notion of the functional identity that includes “theidentity of the corresponding surround” as the obligatory feature is connected with the functionality. The functionality makes it possible to: 1) differentiate the types of coordinate constructions (homogeneity: а) functional (малюю кущі і квіти); b) lexical-semantic (розмовляти про студентів і зі студентами); c) communicative ((92) Люблю поезії, але українські)); 2) realize the structural peculiarities of the coordination, subordination and the patterns of thecoordinate and subordinate overlap; 3) define the types of the coordination (the coordination of the sentences, coordination of the parts of the sentence, coordination of the sentence and the part of the sentence) and subordination; 4) determine the conditions of interchanges in the syntax; 5) diagnose the symmetry of the predicates; 6) descript thecontexts of the general compatibility of the parts of the sentence and namely the compatibility of the coordinate and subordinate parts of the sentence; 7) find out the communicative structure of the sentence with the investigation of its theme-rheme division significance; 8) detect the sentence communicative intentions and the functional perspective of it in the text.

It is perspective to research the correlation of the functionality in the syntax and morphology and also to definethe features of the manifestation of diagnosed functions in the syntax in the languages of one system and the languages of different systems.

References.

Арно, Лансло 1990: Арно, А. Всеобщая рациональная грамматика (Грамматика Пор-Рояля) [Текст] / Антуан Арно, Клод Лансло ; [Пер. с фран., коммент. и послесл. Н. Ю. Бокадоровой] ; [Общ.ред. и вступ. ст. Ю. С. Степанова]. – М. : Прогресс, 1990. – 271, [1] с. : ил.

Бацевич 2012: Бацевич, Ф.С. Імпліцитна інформація у висловленнях і дискурсивні слова [Текст] / Флорій Сергійович Бацевич // Мовознавство. – 2012. – № 5. – С. 3-13.

Вихованець 1992: Вихованець, І.Р. Нариси з функціонального синтаксису [Текст] / Іван Романович Вихованець. – К. : Наукова думка, 1992. – 222 с.

Виноградов 1986: Виноградов, В.В. Русский язык. Грамматическое учение о слове [Текст] / Виктор Владимирович Виноградов. – Изд. 3-е, испр. – М. : Высшая школа, 1986. – 640 с.

Всеволодова 2000: Всеволодова, М.В. Теория функционально-коммуникативного синтаксиса [Текст] / Майя Владимировна Всеволодова. – М. : Изд-во Московского университета, 2000. – 502 с.

Гайдеґґер 2007: Гайдеґґер, М. Дорогою до мови [Текст] / Мартін Гайдеґґер ; [Пер. з нім. В. Кам’янець]. – Львів : Літопис, 2007. – 232 с.

Гак 2000: Гак, В.Г. Теоретическая грамматика французского языка [Текст] / Владимир Григорьевич Гак. – М.: Добросвет, 2000. – 832 с.

Горпинич 2004: Горпинич, В.О. Морфологія української мови [Текст] / Володимир Олександрович Горпинич. – К. : ВЦ «Академія», 2004. – 336 с.

Гуссерль 2001: Гуссерль, Э. Собрание починений. Т. 3 (1) : Логические исследования [Текст] / Эдмонд Гуссерль. – Т. ІІ (1). – М. : Гнозис; Дом интелектуальной книги, 2001. – 529 с.

Загнітко 2011: Загнітко, А. Теоретична граматика української мови : морфологія, синтаксис [Текст] / Анатолій Загнітко. – Донецьк : ТОВ «ВКФ “БАО”», 2011. – 992 с.

Золотова 2010: Золотова, Г.А. Коммуникативный синтаксис русского языка [Текст] / Галина Александровна Золотова. – Изд. 6 – М. : КомКнига, 2010. – 368 с.

Мустайоки 2006: Мустайоки, А. Теория функционального синтаксиса. От семантических структур к языковым структурам [Текст] / Арто Мустайоки. – М. : Языки славянской культуры, 2006. – 512 с.

Недев 1992: Недев, И. Синтаксис на съвременния българския книжовен език [Текст] / Иван Недев. – София : Изд-во Болгарской АН, 1992. – 324 с.

Овсянико-Куликовский 1912: Овсянико-Куликовский, Д.Н. Синтаксис русского языка [Текст] / Дмитрий Николаевич Овсянико-Куликовский. ‒ XXV. – СПб. : Типография М. М. Стасюлевича, 1912. ‒ 322 с.

Остин 1986: Остин, Дж. Слово как действие [Текст] / Джон Легшо Остин // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике : Т. XVII : Теория речевых актов / [Общ. ред. Б. Ю. Городецкого]. – М. : Прогресс, 1986. – С. 22-130.

Попов 1963: Попов, К. Съвременен български език. Синтаксис [Текст] / Константин Попов. – Второ изд. – София : Наука и изкуство, 1963. – 345 с.

Потебня 1958: Потебня, А.А. Из записок по русской грамматике [Текст] / Александр Афанасьевич Потебня. – Т. 1‒2.– М. : Учпедгиз, 1958. – 536 с.

Радева 2009: Радева, П. Записки по синтаксис на съвременния български книжовен език : (словосъчетане и просто изречение) [Текст] / Пенка Радева. – София : Университетско издателство “Св. св. Кирил и Методий”, 2009. – 136 с.

Санников 2008: Санников, В.З. Русский синтаксис в семантико-прагматическом пространстве [Текст] / Владимир Зиновьевич Санников. – М. : Языки славянской культуры, 2008. – 624 с.

Симић, Jовановић 2007: Симић, Р., Jовановић, J. Мала српска граматика [Текст] / Радоjе Симић, Jелена Jовановић. – Екавско изд. – Београд : Издавачи JАСЕН, 2007. – 295 с.

Современный 1989: Современный русский язык [Текст] / Под ред. В. А. Белошапковой. – Изд. 2-е, испр. и доп. – М. : Высшая школа, 1989. – 800 с.

Станоjчић, Поповић 2008: Станоjчић, Ж., Поповић, Љ. Граматика српского jезика. Jеданаесто, прераћено изд. [Текст] / Живоjин Станоjчић, Љубомир Поповић. – Београд : Завод за уџбенике, 2008. – 412 с.

Урысон 2010: Урысон, Е.В. Составной союз или сочетание слов: даже если под семантическим микроскопом [Текст] / Елена Владимировна Урысон // Вопросы языкознания. – 2010. – № 3. – С. 30-59.

Юрченко 2005: Юрченко, В.С. Простое предложение в современном русском языке : двусоставное именное, односоставное глагольное, односоставное именное [Текст] / Василий Семенович Юрченко. – Изд. 2-ое, стереотип – М. : КомКнига, 2005. – 208 с.

Encyklopedia języka polskiego 1999: Encyklopedia języka polskiego [Text] / [Pod red. Stanisława Urbańczyka iMariana Kucaly]. – Wyd. 3-e, popr. iuzup. – Wrocław ; Warszawa ; Kraków : Wyd-wo Zakład Narodowyim. Ossolińskich, 1999. – 508 s.

Grzegorczykowa 2007: Grzegorczykowa, R. Wstęp do językoznawstwa [Text] / Renata Grzegorczykowa. – Warszawa : Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2007. – 256 s.

Mluvnice češtiny 1987: Mluvnice češtiny : [3]: skladba [Text] / Pod. red. Jan Petr. – Praha : Československá akademie věd, 1987. – 746 s.

Nagórko 1996: Nagórko, A. Zarys gramatyki polskiej [Text] / Alicja Nagórko. – Warszawa : Wydawnictwonaukowe PAN, 1996. – 235 s.

Pisarkowa 1965: Pisarkowa, K. Predykatywność określeń w polskim zdaniu [Text] / Krystyna Pisarkowa. – Wrocław : Wyd-wo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskego, 1965. – 205 s.

Проаналізовано функційність у синтаксисі з визначенням її основних кваліфікаційних та класифікаційних ознак та розмежуванням структурних, семантичних (означеності / неозначеності), позиційних, лінійних функцій з визначенням їхнього статусу в реалізації категорійної семантики речення. З’ясовано, що функційність є похідною від функції. Ґрунтовно проаналізовано структурну функційність з диференціюванням рівнів спеціалізації певних внутрішньореченнєвих компонентів-структураторів.

Актуалізовано, що позиційна і лінеарна функції виявлювані в організації окремої синтаксичної позиції (цілісної / розчленованої) та речення загалом, водночас розмежовано семантично наповнену і семантично спустошену внутрішньореченнєві лінійні реалізації. Визначено напрями взаємодії семантичної, позиційної та лінійної функцій та розкрито статус функції формалізації (спеціалізації) синтаксичного слова в регулярному заповненні ним відповідної синтаксичної позиції та перетворенні статусної ролі на роль стрижневу, підпорядковану, співвиявлювану, рівнофункційну та ін. Розкрито зв’язок функційності в синтаксисі з поняттям функційної тотожності, що охоплює як обов’язкову ознаку “тотожність відповідного оточення” та кваліфікацію через нього статусної ролі внутрішньореченнєвого компонента.

Ключові слова: функція, лінійна функція, позиційна функція, структурна функція, семантична функція.

Available 20 July 2013.