Implicit and explicit semantic structures

The aim course work: development of scientific and methodological recommendations on Implicit and explicit semantic structures.
Course work object: the process of introducing Implicit and explicit semantic structures
Subject of course work: skills of introduction to Implicit and explicit semantic structures.
Practical importance of course work. It serves to effectively use the thoughts, approaches and the results of the course work, which ensure the effectiveness of the course work, to prepare lectures on Pedagogical Sciences, create manuals, as well as to create methodological recommendations, popularize work experiences.
The structural structure and volume of the work of the course work: the work consists of an introduction, 2 chapters, 4 sections, general conclusions and recommendations, a list of the literature used

CHAPTER I. STRUCTURE OF A COMPLICATED SENTENCE

1.1 Simple sentence structure

The complexity and multidimensionality of the proposal make it difficult to develop its definition. There are many definitions of this syntactic unit, to which more and more new ones continue to be added. An adequate definition should contain an indication of the generic affiliation of the phenomenon being defined, and, at the same time, it should indicate those of the many properties inherent in it that determine the specifics of this particular phenomenon, thus constituting its essence. In the history of the development of Russian syntax, one can note attempts to define a sentence in terms of logical, psychological and formal grammatical.

The representative of the first direction F.I. Buslaev defined a sentence as “a judgment expressed in words” [12, p.258]. Buslaev also believed that "exact reflection and expression, logical categories and relations find their expression in the language" [12, p.270].
Based on the fact that “a grammatical sentence is not at all identical and not parallel with a logical judgment”, the representative of the second direction A.A. Potebnya considered the sentence as “a psychological (not logical) judgment with the help of a word, i.e. the combination of two mental units: the explained (psychological subject) and the explanatory (psychological predicate), forming a complex sentence. He considered the presence of a verb in a personal form in it as an essential feature of a sentence [34, p. 81-84].
F.F. Shakhmatov built his theory of the sentence on a logical and psychological basis and defined the sentence as follows: "A sentence is a unit of speech perceived by the speaker and listener as a grammatical whole that serves to verbally express a unit of thought." Shakhmatov considered the combination of representations in a special act of thinking to be the psychological basis of the sentence [30, p. 127].
The founder of the formal grammatical direction F.F. Fortunatov considers the sentence as one of the types of phrases: “Among the grammatical phrases used in full sentences of speech, those phrases that we have the right to call grammatical sentences are dominant in the Russian language, because they contain, as parts, a grammatical subject and a grammatical predicate. The members of the sentence by representatives of this direction were determined from a morphological point of view, i.e. were characterized as parts of speech [45, p.188-189].
V.V. Vinogradov takes the structural-semantic principle as the basis for the definition of a sentence: “A sentence is an integral unit of speech grammatically designed according to the laws of a given language, which is the main means of forming, expressing and communicating thoughts” [15, p.254].
In order to give an operationally applicable definition of a sentence, one should proceed from its formal or functional features. In academic linguistics we find the following definition of a sentence: A sentence is one of the syntactic constructions, the central, most important, but not the only one, so we can say that a sentence is a syntactic construction. (In the traditional, most common definition of a sentence, it is called not a “syntactic construction”, but a “group of words.”) Since any syntactic construction is usually a group of words, the definition of a sentence through a syntactic construction does not lose the information reported in the traditional definition. . However, the definition of a sentence as a syntactic construction is more precise: a syntactic construction is a group of words, but not every group of words constitutes a syntactic construction. Having characterized the sentence as a syntactic construction, we have named the property that unites the sentence with some other syntactic units, showed the generic affiliation of the sentence. As for specific features, since we are dealing with a meaningful sign unit of a language, they should reflect properties associated with the features of the structure, content and use of sentences - three aspects that characterize each sign unit of a language that has meaning: structure, semantics and pragmatics [22 , p.57].
It follows that:
a sentence is a unit of language, but such a unit, which is characterized by a structure that gives this language unit the opportunity to be used as a minimum, i.e., the smallest independent segment of speech , i.e., as a minimum speech work;
The subject-predicate structure makes it possible for a language unit to be used independently in speech. It is this structure that gives the sentence relative independence, expressed in the ability to use independently as a minimum of a speech work;
The subject-predicate structure only makes it possible to use the sentence independently in speech. But this possibility is far from always realized: a sentence can be included in larger formations (complex sentences) and thereby lose its independence and act no longer as a minimum of verbal communication, but as part of a larger statement. From this, however, the sentence does not cease to be a sentence, for its subject-predicate structure is preserved.
A simple sentence as an elementary syntactic construction consists of two forms of words combined with each other by a specific syntactic relation (predicative) that exists only in the sentence, or, more rarely, from one word form. An elementary abstract pattern, on which a simple non-common sentence is built, constitutes its predicative basis, a structural pattern. These samples are classified for different reasons: one-component and two-component, free and limited in terms of lexical composition, having or not having a paradigmatic characteristic, non-phraseological and phraseological.
The sentence can be distributed according to the rules of conditional connections - agreement, control, adjunction, or word forms that distribute the sentence as a whole, or participles, A complex sentence is a combination of two (or more) simple sentences (or their analogues) by means of conjunctions, allied words or allied particles (in combination with a certain intonation, and often also with the support of vocabulary) into a kind of new syntactic formation, the parts of which enter into each other. with a friend into certain syntactic relations. At the same time, one of the parts may undergo significant structural changes or even have such a formal organization that is not characteristic of a simple sentence [1, p.395].
The predicative units of a complex sentence, although built on the models of a simple sentence, are in such close interaction in semantic and grammatical terms that it is mostly impossible to divide complex sentences into separate independent simple sentences. The parts of a complex sentence are united both structurally, and in meaning, and intonationally. From the combination of two or more sentences, a complex one is formed, the so-called, in contrast to a simple sentence, not connected with others [6, p.279].
Thus, having defined the concepts of a simple and complex sentence and highlighting specific features, we have revealed the significance of this syntactic unit as the main unit of the language.

1.2 Predicativity and modality as main sentential categories

sentence predicativity modality sentential introductory The main grammatical categories that define a sentence as a separate unit of language are the categories of predicativity and modality.
Predicativity is a syntactic category that determines the functional specificity of the main unit of syntax - a sentence; the key constitutive feature of the sentence, relating information to reality and thereby forming a unit intended for communication; a category that opposes all other units related to the competence of syntax. In a number of syntactic constructions that have a common object of designation, for example, “flying bird”, “bird flight”, and “bird flies”, the last way of designating this object has a special functional quality - predicativity.
Expressing an actualized relation to reality, predicativity distinguishes the sentence from such a unit of language as the word: the sentence “Rain!” with a special intonation, in contrast to the lexical unit "rain", is characterized by the fact that it is based on an abstract sample that has the potential ability to refer information to the plan of the present, future, past tense (was, is, will be). The relationship between the units of syntax called "phrase" and "sentence" is somewhat different.
The phrase includes at least two significant words that are in a relationship of subordination or attributive connection (subordination, control, coordination). The phrase does not have a communicative orientation, and cannot be a grammatical basis, for example, the phrase "heavy rain", In the hierarchy of features that constitute a sentence as a specific unit of language, predicativity is a feature of the highest level of abstraction.
The very model of the sentence, its abstract image (structural diagram) has such grammatical properties that allow you to present what is reported in one or another temporal plan, as well as modify what is reported in the aspect of reality (irreality). The main means of forming predicativity is the category of mood, with the help of which the reported appears as actually being realized in time (past, present, future), i.e. characterized by temporal certainty, or it is conceived in terms of unreality - as possible, desired, due or required, i.e. characterized by temporal uncertainty.
The differentiation of these signs of the reported (temporal certainty or uncertainty) is based on the opposition of the forms of the indicative mood and the forms of the irreal mood (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, incentive and obligatory). Predicativity as an integral grammatical feature of any sentence model and specific statements built on this model, in relation to objective modality. Forming one of the central units of the language and representing the most significant - the truth aspect of what is being communicated, predicativity (as well as objective modality) is a linguistic universal. The representation of the essence of predicativity (as well as the term itself) is not unambiguous. Along with the concept of V. V. Vinogradov, the term predicativity also denotes the property of the predicate, as a syntactic member of a two-part sentence (predicative, which means predicative, characteristic of the predicate).
The concept of predicativity is part of the syntactic concepts: “predicative connection”, “predicative relation”, connection between the subject and the predicate, as well as the relation of the logical subject and the predicate; in this usage, predicativity is no longer understood as a category of the highest level of abstraction (inherent in the sentence model as such, in the sentence in general, and regardless of its composition), but as a concept associated with the level of division of the sentence, i.e. with such sentences in which the subject and the predicate can be distinguished. Predicativity is also called the general, global logical property of any statement, as well as the property of thought, its focus on updating the reported. This aspect of predication correlates with the concept of predication, the main property of which is considered to be related to reality, and with the concept of proposition, the hallmark of which is true vision [1, p.391].
Predication (from Latin Praedicato - statement) is one of the three main functions of linguistic expressions, the act of connecting independent objects of thought, expressed by independent words, in order to reflect the "state of affairs", an event, a situation of reality [1, p.393].
Being a necessary element of the semantic organization of any sentence, modality has been an object of active study for several decades, but there is still no consensus on the status of the category of modality and the scientific description of its nature and means of expression still has "white spots" that attract research interest. Some scientists identify the linguistic modality with the logical one, others rely on what comes from V.V. Vinogradova and S. Bally a broad understanding of modality, considering among the modal meanings the emotional attitude to the reported.
A number of researchers classify the meanings of negation and affirmation as modal, as well as authorization, goal setting, evaluation, bringing the modality out of the sentence into a pragmatic consideration of the context. As is known, observations of the behavior of modal units of human language in logic led to the introduction into consideration, in addition to others, of modal operators - necessity and possibility. When analyzing sentences, modality usually refers to the meaning of the entire sentence as a whole, in combination with the actual description of an event, fact, etc.; modality "actualizes" the sentence. There are epistemic and deontic types of modality. The deontic or basic modality is associated with the necessity or possibility of actions performed by the "morally responsible" participants in the situation; basic for this variety is the concept of deontic necessity, or "obligation".
The epistemic modality of the sentence consists in the speaker expressing his attitude to the judgment being expressed from the point of view of what is available, was or will be in the real world, without introducing deontic aspects (i.e. what should or would be good to have). However, it is not always possible to clearly separate the epistemic modality from the deontic one. Within the epistemic modality, subjective and objective varieties are distinguished; the epistemic modality itself rests, according to J. Lyons, on the “epistemic guarantee”. An objective epistemic modality is understood as a modality that has a graduated character: from necessary truth to possibility. Unlike the subjective epistemic modality, the objective modality does not include the speaker's attitude towards the judgment being expressed, but it can include such an assessment in terms of the degree of "objective" truth. Modality (from lat.
Modalis - modal, and lat. - modus - measure way) is a functional - semantic category that expresses different types of relations between the statement and reality, as well as different types of subjective qualifications of the reported. Modality is a linguistic universal, it belongs to the main categories of natural language, “it is found in different forms in languages ​​of different systems, in languages ​​of the European system, it covers the entire fabric of speech” (V.V. Vinogradov). The term modality is used to refer to a wide range of phenomena that are heterogeneous in terms of semantic volume, grammatical properties and the degree of formalization at different levels of the language structure.
The question of the boundaries of this category is solved by different researchers in different ways. The scope of modality includes: opposition of statements according to the nature of their communicative goal setting (statement - question - motivation);
opposition on the basis of "approval - negation"; gradation of values ​​in the range "reality - unreality" (reality - hypothetical - unreality), a different degree of confidence of the speaker in the reliability of his thoughts about reality; various modifications of the connection between the subject and the predicate, expressing it by lexical means (“wants”, “must”, “need”, “may”), etc. Most researchers differentiate the category of modality. One aspect of differentiation is the opposition between objective and subjective modality. gradation of values ​​in the range "reality - unreality" (reality - hypothetical - unreality), a different degree of confidence of the speaker in the reliability of his thoughts about reality; various modifications of the connection between the subject and the predicate, expressing it by lexical means (“wants”, “must”, “need”, “may”), etc.
Most researchers differentiate the category of modality. One aspect of differentiation is the opposition between objective and subjective modality. gradation of values ​​in the range "reality - unreality" (reality - hypothetical - unreality), a different degree of confidence of the speaker in the reliability of his thoughts about reality; various modifications of the connection between the subject and the predicate, expressing it by lexical means (“wants”, “must”, “need”, “may”), etc. Most researchers differentiate the category of modality. One aspect of differentiation is the opposition between objective and subjective modality. Objective modality - denotes a sign of any statement, this is one of the categories that forms a predicative unit - a sentence.
Objective modality expresses the relationship of the reported to reality in terms of reality and unreality. The main means of forming modality in this function is the category of the verbal mood. At the syntactic level, the objective modality is represented by the opposition of the forms of the syntactic indicative mood to the forms of syntactically irreal moods. The category of the indicative mood (indicative) contains objectively - modal meanings of reality, i.e. temporal certainty: the ratio of the forms of the indicative (was - is - will be) the content of the message is assigned to one of the three time plans - present - past - future; the ratio of the form of real inclinations, characterized by temporal uncertainty (it would be) with the help of special modifiers, the same message, referred to the plan of the desired, required or necessary.
Objective modality is organically linked with the category of time and is differentiated on the basis of temporal certainty/uncertainty. Objectively, the meaning is organized into a system of oppositions, which is revealed in the grammatical paradigm of the sentence. Subjective modality - i.e. the attitude of the speaker to the reported, in contrast to the objective modality, is an optional feature of the utterance.
Semantically, the scope of subjective modality is wider than the semantic scope of objective modality; the meanings that make up the content of the category of subjective modality are heterogeneous and require ordering; many of them are not directly related to grammar. The semantic basis of the subjective modality is formed by the concept of evaluation in the broad sense of the word, including not only the logical (intellectual, rational) qualification of the reported, but also various types of emotional (irrational) reactions.
Subjective modality includes the whole gamut of different aspects and different character methods of qualification of what is communicated that actually exist in natural language and is implemented: using interjections.
· special intonational means to accentuate surprise, doubt, confidence, distrust, protest, irony and other emotionally expressive nuances of the subjective attitude to what is being reported.
special constructions - a specialized structural diagram of the proposal or a scheme for constructing its components.
The introduction of special modal particles, for example, to express uncertainty (sort of), assumption (perhaps), inaccuracy (supposedly), surprise (well), fear (what good), etc. Special lexico-grammatical classes of words, as well as phrases and sentences that are functionally close to them: these means occupy a syntagmatically autonomous position in the utterance and function as introductory units.
Means of subjective modality function as modifiers of the main modal qualification, expressed by the verbal mood, they are able to overlap the objective-modal characteristics, form the “last resort” qualification in the modal hierarchy of the utterance. In this case, the object of an optional assessment can be not only a predicative basis, but any informatively significant fragment of the message. In this case, an imitation of an additional predicative core appears on the periphery of the sentence, creating the effect of polypredicativeness of the reported. In the category of subjective modality, natural language captures one of the key properties of the human psyche: the ability to oppose “I” and “not I” (a conceptual beginning to a neutrally informative background) within an utterance. In its most complete form, this concept was reflected in the works of S. Bally, who believed that in any statement, the opposition of the actual content (dictum) and the individual assessment of the stated facts (modus) is realized.
Bally defines modality as an active mental operation performed by the speaker on the representation of the content in the dictum. In Russian linguistics, a deep analysis of the functional range of modality and, in particular, According to Peshkovsky, the category of modality expresses only one relationship - the attitude of the speaker to the connection that he himself establishes between the content of a given statement and reality, i.e. relation to relation. With this approach, modality is studied as a complex and multidimensional category that actively interacts with a whole system of other functionally semantic categories of the language and is closely related to the categories of the pragmatic level.
From these positions, the category of modality is seen as a reflection of complex interactions between four factors of communication: the speaker, the interlocutor, the content of the statement and reality [1, p.248].
Having considered the sentential categories of predicativity and modality, we determined their meaning and categorical function. Predicativity is the key constitutive feature of a sentence, relating information to reality and thus forming a unit intended for communication. And modality is a category that expresses different types of relation of the utterance to reality.