Conjunctive and oppositional paradigm: structure and functions 

Abstract.

CONJUNCTIVE AND OPPOSITIONAL PARADIGM: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS

Anatolii Zahnitko

Department of General and Applied Linguistics and Slavic Philology, Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine.

Abstract

Background: The article identifies the directions of rethinking in modern grammar the traditional approaches to the interpretation of partial word classes by searching for the appropriate cognitive mechanisms, functional statuses, pragmatic orientations, etc. of such groupings of lexemes. Each of these approaches deserves attention because it considers a particular categorical class in the appropriate aspect: cognitive – through the active use of conceptual-representational analysis and the cognitive-matrix method to establish prototypical categories, functional – identification and differentiation of primary and secondary manifestations of lexeme sets of category classes, pragmatic – studying the intentional possibilities of the corresponding forms of partitive classes, descriptive – inventory of positions, onomasiological – tracing nominal features, cf. also a combination of morphological, syntactic, semantic and intuitive.

Purpose: It is essential to establish the qualifying features of the partial-word class of conjunctions with the identification of features and regularities of their structural, paradigmatic, positional and functional characteristics, since in the general set of scientific studies the most attention is focused on the correlation of analytical and synthetic tendencies in the conjunction class, as well as on the clarification of specialization and transposition in its structure (M. Vondracek, K. Horodenska, M. Mirchenko, etc.), while it is important to determine the positional stability and/or non-stability of conjunctive words, to establish the capacity of the paradigmaticity of conjunctions in general and each in particular. It is important to reveal the functional content of conjunction words, for which it is necessary to trace the path from partial to complete blurring of the primary semantics of transpositions.

Results: The study of conjunctions in their syntactic and semantic constructions and anchorages and morphological identification requires the expansion of methodological and algorithmic procedures and the use of the methodology of functional analogy, The approach to the conjunction based on functional constructions hinders the qualification of adjacent elements in the connecting function. The use of the method of functional analogy provides a basis for interpreting such an analytical formation as a realizer of connectivity. The involvement of a full-meaning and/or partial-meaning word in the relational subsystem has a continuum character, where the qualifiers of the continuum scale are a set of features that reflect relativization not as an occurrence but as a process.

Discussion: Diagnosing the connecting features involves the creation and application of an appropriate algorithm. The process of relativization is most related to syntax and semantics, since the patterns of realization of syntactic connection and expression of semantic relations actualize the entry of a full-sense word into the relational sphere and the formation of an integral regularly recognizable unit that gradually acquires signs of reproducibility, regularity, etc. Functional similarity is one of the criteria for the syntactic classification of lexis and for providing the qualification of a morphological word with a reliable theoretical and methodological basis.

Keywords: conjunction, paradigmaticity, conjunctive paradigmaticity, analogous conjunction, analytical conjunctions.

Vitae

Anatolii Zahnitko is a Doctor of Philology, Professor, Corresponding Member of NAS of Ukraine, Professor at the Department of General and Applied Linguistics and Slavic Philology at Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University. Areas of research interests include functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, comparative linguistics, categorical linguistics, lexicographic linguistics, text linguistics and lingvopersonology.

Correspondence: a.zagnitko@donnu.edu.ua  

Article.

References. 

1.   Вихованець, Іван. Р. Частини мови в семантико-граматичному аспекті. Київ : Наукова думка, 1988. 255 с.

[Vykhovanets, Ivan R. Chastyny movy v semantyko-hramatychnomu aspekti. Kyiv : Naukova dumka, 1988. 255 s.]

2.   Городенська, К. Граматичний словник української мови. Сполучники. Київ-Херсон : Херсонський державний університет, 2007. 340 с.

[Horodenska, K. Hramatychnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. Spoluchnyky. Kyiv-Kherson : Khersonskyi derzhavnyi universytet, 2007. 340 s.]

3.   Городенська, К.Г. Сполучники української літературної мови. Київ : Видавничий дім Дмитра Бураго, 2010. 204 с.

[Horodenska, K.H. Spoluchnyky ukrainskoi literaturnoi movy. Kyiv : Vydavnychyi dim Dmytra Buraho, 2010. 204 s.]

4.   Загнітко, А. «Матеріали до словника» [В:] Українські прийменники: Синхронія і діахронія: пробний зошит. Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2003, 3–17.

[Zahnitko, A. «Materialy do slovnyka» [V:] Ukrainski pryimennyky: Synkhroniia i diakhroniia: probnyi zoshyt. Donetsk : DonNU, 2003, 3–17.]

5.   Загнітко, А. Теоретична граматика сучасної української мови. Морфологія. Синтаксис. Донецьк : ТОВ «ВКФ «БАО», 2011.  991 с.

[Zahnitko, A. Teoretychna hramatyka suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy. Morfolohiia. Syntaksys. Donetsk : TOV «VKF «BAO», 2011.  991 s.]

6.     Загнітко, А. Сучасний лінгвістичний словник. Вінниця : Твори, 2020. Х, 992 с.

[Zahnitko, A. Suchasnyi linhvistychnyi slovnyk. Vinnytsia : Tvory, 2020. X, 992 s.]

7.   Загнітко, А., Данилюк, І., Ситар, Г., Щукіна, І. Словник українських прийменників. Сучасна українська мова. Донецьк : ТОВ «ВКТ «БАО», 2007. 376 c.

[Zahnitko, A., Danyliuk, I., Sytar, H., Shchukina, I. Slovnyk ukrainskykh pryimennykiv. Suchasna ukrainska mova. Donetsk : TOV «VKT «BAO», 2007. 376 s.]

8.   Канюшкевіч, М.І. Беларускія прыназоўнікі і іх аналагі. Граматыка рэальнага ўжывання. Матэрыялы да слоўніка : [У 3 ч.]. Ч. 1 : Дыяпазон А–Л. Гродна: ГрДУ, 2008; Ч. 2 : Дыяпазон М–П.  Гродна : ГрДУ, 2010;  Ч. 3 : Дыяпазон Р–Я. Гродна : ГрДУ, 2010.

[Kaniushkevich, M.I. Belaruskiia prynazovniki i ikh analahi. Hramatyka realnaha vzhyvannia. Materyialy da slovnika : [U 3 ch.]. Ch. 1 : Dyiapazon A–L. Hrodna: HrDU, 2008; Ch. 2 : Dyiapazon M–P.  Hrodna : HrDU, 2010;  Ch. 3 : Dyiapazon R–Ia. Hrodna : HrDU, 2010.]

9.   СУМ 11: Словник української мови. Київ : Наукова думка, 1970–1980.

[Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. Kyiv : Naukova dumka, 1970–1980.]

10.  СУМ 20: Словник української мови. Київ : Наукова думка; Український мовно-інформаційний фонд НАН України, 2010–2023. 

[Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. Kyiv : Naukova dumka; Ukrainskyi movno-informatsiinyi fond NAN Ukrainy, 2010–2023.]

11.  Klikovac, D. Semantika predloga: studia iz kognitivne lingvistike. Drugo izd. Beograd : Filološki fakultet, 2006. 446 s.

12.  Lachur, Cz. «O podstawach teoretycznych semantycznej kategorii ablatywności w językach słowiańskich» [V:] Acta Polono-Ruthenica XIII, 2008, 437–446.

13.  Lachur, Cz. Polskie przyimki wtórne i jednostki o funkcji przyimkowej w użyciu realnym: [materialy do słownika (w zestawlieniu z językiem rosyjskim)]. T. 4: Tak zwane przyimki parametryczne. Suplement do tomów 1–3. Opole, Kępa : Wydawnictwo NOWIK Sp.j, 2022. 401 s.

14.  Leška, O. K «Оtazce tzv transpozice» [V:] Ruskoceske studie. Sbornik Vysoké školy pedagogicke v Praze: Jazyk a literature II, 1960: 43–46.

15.  Mluvnice češtiny [1]. Fonetika. Fonologie. Morfonologie a morfemika. Tvořeni slov / [red. J. Petr]. Praha : Academia, 1960. 567 s.

16.  Wajszczuk, J. System znaczeń w obszarze spójników polskich. Warszawa : Uniwersytet Warszawski, 1997. 359 s.

17.  Żeberek, T. Funkcjonowanie przyimków i wyrażeń przyimkowych w tekście rosyjskim i polskim. Kraków : Wydawnictwo Naukowe WSP. 1994. 315 s.

18.  Zgółkowa, H. Funkcje syntaktyczne przyimkуw i wyrażeń przyimkowych we wspуłczesnej polszczyźnie mуwionej. Poznań : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Adama Mickewicza, 1980. 295 s.