facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Wiki
Page translation
 

SYNTAXEME ANALYSIS OF BIVALENCE COMPONENTS IN THE POSITION OF HOMOGENEOUS NON-NUCLEAR DEPENDENT (HND) ELEMENTS

SYNTAXEME ANALYSIS OF BIVALENCE COMPONENTS IN THE POSITION OF HOMOGENEOUS NON-NUCLEAR DEPENDENT (HND) ELEMENTS
Asadov Rustam, senior research associate, doctoral candidate

Samarkand State Institute of Foreign languages, Uzbekistan

Conference participant

The actuality of this article is that the theory of valency is studied here in functional syntactic level quite differently from the theory of Western World. This difference will be revealed within the article. This article may take interest of Linguists, postgraduates, independent researchers who work in the field of functional syntax, contextual analysis and translation. While working at this article through thousands of sentences with bivalence elements in the position of HND were looked through. I analyzed bivalence elements on the basis of transformational method, componential and syntaxeme analysis, experimental methods of passivisation, omittion and addition to identify semantics of these elements, their status in the sentence structure, morphological features, and semantics in the syntactic level, differential syntactic features and connection with other syntaxemes. As a result, I identified 15 syntaxemes expressed by HND components, their relation on the base of subordinative connection with 10 syntaxemes; their being dependent on nuclear predicated, nuclear predicating, non-nuclear dependent elements of the sentence; their position according to the head word i.e. placing in postposition or preposition expressed in the article.

Keywords: tagmemes, segments, distributional analysis, bivalence elements, homogeneous non-nuclear dependent components, valency, coordinative relation, subordinate relation, categorical signs, non-categorical signs, substantiality, qualificativity and processuality; object, locative allative, adessive, comitative syntaxemes.

 

From the history of linguistics it is known that English and American linguists studied syntactic analysis in different ways. American structuralists mainly, studied grammar on the basis of its formal structure. As the result of their experiment there appeared a need to pay attention to semantics in the syntactic level.For example, the analysis of immediate constituents has several forms. While A. A. Hill considers that defining tagmemes (tagmemes - are minimal functional segments of the sentence) involves all parts of the sentence [3, P.181], Z. S. Harris advanced dividing sentence structure into parts of sentences and adjuncts by distributional analysis supporting string analysis [2, P.217]. L. E. Longacre performed string analysis by the method of immediate constituents [4, P.172]. Syntactic analysis of the sentence structure is limited by analyzing it by immediate constituents. But this method can only reveal its morphological feature and cannot advance into process of synthesis. Then appeared transformational method and as its results dividing into segments and analysis of distributional method was developed. Linguists of this school in America are N. Chomsky, 1957; P. Roberts, 1964; E. Bach, 1964; R.E. Less, 1960; A. Hathway, 1967; P. S. Rosenbaum, 1967 and others. These methods of linguistic analyses got developed and changed into different methods.

Although there have been significant works in research of distributional, transformational and immediate constituents methods [5, P.8-23], very little has been done on syntaxeme analysis of the components of a sentence. In this article I deal with bivalence elements in the position of homogeneous non-nuclear dependent (HND) components by dividing them into components on the basis of modeling method in syntagmatic direction, and dividing them into syntaxemes in paradigmatic direction. The method of dividing components can only describe the surface structure of the sentence with bivalence elements while analysis of dividing into syntaxemes involves deep structure of the sentence with bivalence elements. But some linguists try to state surface and deep structure by methods of transformational analysis, for example: “The deep structure” means the boy is sleeping; “The surface structure” means Is the boy sleeping? [6]. In such kind of analysis only formal sides are taken into consideration and are limited with the analysis of immediate constituents.

In this work by surface structure we understand to determine syntactic relations between syntactic units and defining their differential-syntactic features with the help of junctional and componential models; and by deep structure – defining semantics of syntactic units of the sentence structure in the syntactic level.

As it is stated in a previous publication of mine valency of syntactic units is defined according to the number of their syntactic relations with other syntactic units, i.e. a syntactic unit having one syntactic relation is a one-valency element, and the one with two syntactic relations is a bivalency element/component [1, P.110]. Bivalence components functioning in the position of homogeneous non-nuclear dependents get into two syntactic relations: coordinative and subordinative. In coordinative relation homogeneous non-nuclear dependent elements are in equal contact with each other – this is their first valency; they are together in subordinate relation with the head word – this is their second valency. So components in the position of HND have two syntactic valencies, that’s why they are called bivalence syntactic units.

We can observe homogeneous non-nuclear dependent elements in the following positions:

  • 1. As an adjunct of nuclear predicated (NP1) element (subject): Sakta, Saiva, and Vaisnava faiths became established.
  • 2. As an adjunct of nuclear predicating (NP2) element (predicate). In this function homogeneous non-nuclear dependent elements can be both in pre-position and post-position in respect to the head word: You can’t stop twisting and scheming. She was a good, decent, working-class woman.
  • 3. As a complement of the non-nuclear predicating (NP2) element: Everything made Derek feel shabby and inadequate.
  • 4. As an adjunct of non-nuclear dependent (ND) element: Young man gained admission to an Austrian, German or Scandinavian Universities.

As it is seen in above given examples, homogeneous non-nuclear dependent components, whether they are in pre-position or post-position, whether they are adjunct of nuclear element or dependent element, have coordinative and subordinate relations. So in analyzing sentences with homogeneous non-nuclear dependent elements, it is better to pay close attention to categorical signs such as substantiality, qualificativity and processuality and on the basis of them to identify their non-categorical signs. On the basis of substantiality bivalence syntactic units in the position of homogeneous non-nuclear dependent elements can express the following syntaxemes: object, object-negative, locative, locative allative, locative adessive, locative ablative, possessive, causal, comitative syntaxemes.

  • 1. He must decide on guilt or innocence.
  • 2. The blue beret men had hated the Caco, Celo and Sherif.

In these sentences guilt or innocence (1), Caco, Celo and Sherif (2) are homogeneous non-nuclear dependent components and they express substantial object syntaxemes. This can be proved by transformation passivisation.

  • (1) He must decide on guilt or innocence → on guilt or innocence must be decided by him.
  • (2) The blue beret men had hated the Caco, Celo and Sherif → the Caco, Celo and Sherif had been hated by the blue beret men.

In the first sentence He must decide on guilt or innocence, syntactic units, express the following syntaxemes: he – substantial agentive, must decide – processual actional modal, and homogeneous non-nuclear dependent elements on guilt or innocence – substantial object syntaxemes. We can describe them in the model like this:

NP1   .      NP2    .  IHND  .  IIHND

SbAg    PrAcMd    SbOb      SbOb

 

In the second sentence The blue beret men had hated the Caco, Celo and Sherif in the syntactic units blue – qualificative qualitative, beret – qualificative qualitative, hated – processual actional, Caco, Celo and Sherif – substantial object syntaxemes are expressed:

  ND   .   ND  .  NP1  .  NP2  . IHND . IIHND . IIIHND

QlfQlt  QlfQlt   SbAg  PrAc   SbOb     SbOb     SbOb

 

On the basis of subordinative relation substantial object syntaxeme may be connected with the following syntaxemes:

  • a) with processual actional syntaxeme:  He had brought Mister and Eagle to the city.
  • b) with processual actional directive syntaxeme:  The cemetery was stuffed with mines, ordnances, grenades and bodies.
  • c) with processual actional modal syntaxeme:  I should like some tea or coffee.
  • d) with qualificative qualitative comparative syntaxeme: I’m more worried about my friends and comrades.
  • e) with processual posessive syntaxeme:  You have my name, number and workplace.
  • f) with substantial locative posessive syntaxeme:  He ran the city’s affairs and officials.

Besides object syntaxemes, several variations of locative syntaxemes can be expressed by bivalence homogeneous non-nuclear dependent components.

  • 1. I found myself jammed in between the stern-post and rudder.
  • 2. Young man gained admission to an Austrian, German or Scandinavian University.
  • 3. Asylum seekers from China, Afghanistan and Iran are stocked here before being moved on.

In the above given examples bivalence syntactic units expressing locative syntaxemes (in between the stern-post and ruder (3), to an Austrian, German or Scandinavian University (4), from China, Afghanistan and Iran (5)) can be proved by exchanging them with adverbs here or there:

(1) I found myself jammed in between the stern-post and rudder → I found myself jammed there.

In this sentence homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence syntactic elements in between the stern-post and rudder express not only locative syntaxeme but also addesive syntaxeme (placement of an object or person in place) in the sentence structure. In the next sentence homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components to an Austrian, German or Scandinavian University express locative allative syntaxemes (allative means an action directed towards the object). Homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence component can be exchanged with here, there in this sentence, too:

(4) Young man gained admission to an Austrian, German or Scandinavian University  →  Young man gained admission there.

It is clear from the analysis of the sentences that in the exchanging prepositional nouns expressing locative adessive and locative allative syntaxemes with adverbs prepositions are omitted. But when we exchange a prepositional noun which expresses ablativeness (action directed from the place to another one), a variant of locative syntaxemes, with adverbs here, there preposition cannot be omitted:

(5) Asylum seekers from China, Afghanistan and Iran are stocked here before being moved on → Asylum seekers from there are stocked here before being moved on.

While analyzing locative syntaxemes expressed by homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components on the basis of linguistic methods the following variations of expressing locative syntaxemes can be observed.

  1. in S or S: I expect it is the same thing in Rome or Canterbury.
  2. on  S and in S: There was silence on the veldt and on the earth and in the sky.
  3. between  S and S: There shall be no equality between church and state.
  4. over S and over S: There were clouds over the lakes and over the valley.

As stated in some examples homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components may express a posessive syntaxeme too: I can be a follower of Islam or Zionizm or any other religion. In this sentence to prove posessive syntaxeme we should use method experiment of changing posessive syntactic unit into attributive word combination: (6) I can be a follower of Islam or Zionizm or any other religion  →  I can be an Islam’s follower or a Zionizm’s follower  or any other religion’s follower.

Homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components may also express a causative (reason) syntaxeme: 7) I need a signature for the hospital and the pathologist. To prove causality we can add because of before the homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components which express causal syntaxemes: (7) I need a signature for the hospital and the pathologist → I need a signature because of the hospital and the pathologist.

Homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components can express manner, state, stative negative, qualitative, qualitative negative syntaxemes on the basis of qualificativity from categorical differential syntactic-semantic signs:

  1. He had come into the lab quietly and unnoticed.
  2. He was standing well-dressed, smiling, good-natured.
  3. Various tournaments cover young and old players.

In sentence (8) homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components quietly, unnoticed express qualification from categorical syntactic – semantic signs and manner syntaxeme from non – categorical ones. To prove it we put this sentence into the model of transformation – interrogation: (8) He had come into the lab quietly and unnoticed → How had he come into the lab?Or In what way had he come into the lab?In sentence (9) bivalence syntactic units well–dressed, smiling, good–natured express state syntaxemes. It can be clear by adding the combination in the state of before homogeneous non – nuclear dependent bivalence components: (9) He was standing well-dressed, smiling, good-natured → He was standing  in the state of well - dressed, smiling, good-natured. Qualificative stative syntaxeme may be in negative form. In sentence (10) homogeneous non – nuclear dependent bivalence components neither hope nor dread express qualificative stative negative syntaxemes: (10) She was filled with neither hope nor dread → She was in the state of neither hope nor dread orShe felt neither hope nor dread. In the next sentence homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components young and old express qualificative qualitative syntaxemes. To prove that we can use the following types of experimental method:

a) omitting and changing into attributive word combination: (11) Various tournaments cover young and old players → ... … young and old players → young players; → old  players.

b) changing into a sentence: Various tournaments cover young and old players → … … players are young and old  →  players  are young;  →  players are  old.

Bivalence elements in the position of homogeneous non – nuclear dependent (HND) components can express actional object, actional directive and stative syntaxemes from non-categorical syntactic – semantic signs.

12. The security man wanted to sneer, spit.

13. She didn’t want to be liked or admired.

In sentence (12) homogeneous non – nuclear dependent bivalence components to sneer, spit on the basis of processuality express an object actional syntaxeme. To prove it we can put the sentence into the model of transformation – passivisation: (12) The security man wanted to sneer, spit → to sneer, spit were wanted by the security man. The security man wanted to sneer, spit → The security man …… sneered, spit. In the next sentence homogeneous non-nuclear dependent bivalence components to be liked or admired express actional directive syntaxemes. It is seen in the following transformation: (13) She didn’t want to be liked or admired → she …. wasn’t liked or admired  → I didn’t like or admire her.

Syntaxemes expressed by homogeneous non – nuclear dependent components can be connected with the following syntaxemes on the basis of subordinative relation:

  • 1) Substantial object sytaxeme is connected with processual actional, processual actional directive, processual actional modal, qulificative qualitative comparative, processual posessive, substantial locative posessive;
  • 2) Substantial locative adessive syntaxeme is connected with processual stative and substantial object syntaxemes;
  • 3) Substantial locative ablative syntaxeme is connected with substantial object syntaxemes;
  • 4) Substantial locative allative syntaxeme is connected with substantial object syntaxemes;
  • 5) Substantial posessive syntaxeme is connected with substantial identificating syntaxeme;
  • 6) Supstantial causative syntaxeme is connected with substantial identificating and substantial object syntaxemes;
  • 7) Qualificative syntaxeme of manner is connected with substantial locative adessive syntaxeme;
  • 8) Qualificative stative syntaxeme is connected with processual actional and actional directive syntaxemes;
  • 9) Qualificative qualitative syntaxeme is connected with substantial object syntaxeme;
  • 10) Actional object syntaxeme is connected with processual actional syntaxeme;
  • 11) Actional direct and processual stative syntaxemes are connected with processual actional or processual stative syntaxemes.

 

References:

  • 1. Asadov R.M. Syntaxemes expressed by bivalence components in the position of homogeneous nuclear predicated elements in the structure of sentences / Neue Methodische Ansдtze im DaF-Unterricht – Band 2. Mainz, 2014. – P. 109-123.
  • 2. Harris  Z.S. String Analysis of Sentence Structure. - The Hague, 1964. – 358 p.
  • 3. Hill A.A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures from Sound to Sentence in English: New York, 1958. – 396 p.
  • 4. Longacre R.E. String Constituent Analysis. Language, 1960. – №1 – P. 163-189.
  • 5. TurniyozovN. Q. Introduction into Structural Syntax of the Uzbek Language.– Samarkand: SamSU, 1989.–76p.)
  • 6. URL el.mdu.tw/detacos//09512011028B/Chapter%204-Handout.doc.
Comments: 3

Shumenko Olha

Спасибо большое, уважаемый Рустам! Очень интересный и познавательный доклад. Желаю Вам дальнейших открытий, успехов и здоровья.

Kobyakova Iryna

УважаемыйРустам ! Тема очень актуальна и интересна. Спасибо за очень содержательный доклад. Подход к проблеме очень интерсный, аргументированный. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ирина Кобякова

Olena Nazarenko

Dear Rustam, thank you for your deep investigation! The results of your research will be useful in many scientific spheres. We wish you further success and inspiration! Yelena Nazarenko.
Comments: 3

Shumenko Olha

Спасибо большое, уважаемый Рустам! Очень интересный и познавательный доклад. Желаю Вам дальнейших открытий, успехов и здоровья.

Kobyakova Iryna

УважаемыйРустам ! Тема очень актуальна и интересна. Спасибо за очень содержательный доклад. Подход к проблеме очень интерсный, аргументированный. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ирина Кобякова

Olena Nazarenko

Dear Rustam, thank you for your deep investigation! The results of your research will be useful in many scientific spheres. We wish you further success and inspiration! Yelena Nazarenko.
PARTNERS
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.