on two russian constructions: what else if not synonyms? nezrin samedova, azerbaijan university of...

On Two Russian Constructions:

What Else If Not Synonyms?

Nezrin Samedova,Azerbaijan University of Languages

NACHAT’ + INFvs.

the perfective constructionSTAT’ + INF

They substitute each other.

However, their meaningsare not completely identical.

The question is:What is their semantic singularity?

There is no unanimously acceptedanswer to the question.

We have investigated the problem

using the method of system analysis

[Ломтев 1976]

1. Both constructions have the meaning of the beginning (initiality).

2. Both are translated into English as to begin+INF.

3. Both are widely used.4. The areas of their usage fully coincide.5. The main components of both are

perfective, whereas only imperfectives are permitted as their non-main components.

It is clear, however, thatthe semantic identityof these constructionscannot be absolute.

Indeed, STAT’ + INF is used much more frequently

than NACHAT’ + INF, cf. Russian National Corpus.

Hence, we can applythe Kruszewski – Kuriłowicz rule.

The Kruszewski – Kuriłowicz rule:the linguistic unit

that is used more frequentlyis semantically simpler

than the linguistic unit used less frequently

(the principle of economy)

Therefore, we can state

that STAT’ + INFis semantically simplerthan NACHAT’ + INF.

The comparison NACHAT’ vs. NACHINAT’

enables to state:

the construction NACHAT’ + INFhas the following semantic structure

(we ignore irrelevant details)

1. the non-aspectual meaning of a non-homogeneous process (initiality)

-and correspondingly –

2. the aspectual meaning of the final moment (perfectivity);

3. the non-aspectual meaning of the

process inherent in an infinitive.

If to use the metaphor of linefor interpreting the concept of a process

and the metaphor of pointto interpret the concept of perfectivity,

we can illustratethe meaning of NACHAT’ + INF:

initiality a process─────────────•─────────────

perfectivity

(Both metaphors possess a specific cognitive content)

As regards STAT’ + INF,

we face a paradox.

On the one hand,the meaning of its components contains

three elements in total.

Two of them belong to the verb STAT’:- the non-aspectual meaning of a process,

- perfectivity.

One belongs to the infinitive:- the non-aspectual meaning of a process.

On the other hand,the meaning of STAT’ + INF contains

fewer than three elements,

for it is simplerthan the meaning of NACHAT’ + INF.

G.S. Samedov has solved the paradox:

Two meanings of a process merge.

Thus, STAT’ + INF has

the meaning of a syncretic process.

The merger is possiblebecause the nature of the initiality

possessed by STAT’ + INFis different from the one

characterizing NACHAT’ + INF.

It is like a point.

In other words,the initiality

attributing to the verb STAT’is punctual.

It isthe meaning of the initial moment.

That is why it does not preventthe meanings of a process

from amalgamating:

Initiality(punctual)•──────────────────────────

a syncretic process

Thus, the meaningof the perfective construction

STAT’ + INFindeed contains two elements.

Thus, the paradox is solvedif to differentiate two types of initiality:

linear and punctual.The nature of punctual initiality

is aspectual. It is perfectivity.

Linear initiality is non-aspectual.

Besides being a special interestfor languages that have the category of aspect,

the analysis enables to makethe following fundamental

conclusion.

Linguistics does needthe concept of synonymy.

As to the nature of the phenomenon,the analyzed case

has shed new light on it.