Main Article Content

Anastasiia Viktorivna LEPETIUKHA


Introduction. This paper is dedicated to the studies of monopredicative utterances (MU) with contamination as secondary polypredicative propositions which are formed in the language by the way of transformation of phenomenologically constructed primary polypredicative proposition within the functional-semantic macrofield (FSM) of syntactical synonymy that are actualized in the form of discourse innovations-synonymic preferential options. Purpose. Purpose of the paper is to classify the phenomenologically reduced contaminated MU and to determine semantic and pragmatic peculiarities and the degree of pertinence of each microfield of FSM of syntactical synonymy in some co(n)text. Originality. In this research they study the MU with contamination in terms of the theory of mental kinetism in the dichotomy language / discourse using the method of inverse reconstruction (discourse → language) of virtual (linguistic) process of transformation of primary polypredicative structure as the result of which the monopredicative synonymic discourse innovations are formed. Results. In MU are actualized the contaminated predicative constructions with syntactically deficient infinitive that marks the activity or state of person or object in the position of subject, i.e. it is controlled by the agent of utterance. They distinguish several types of contaminated MU with a single or double referentiation, such as: а) P (predicate) of thought + Inf (іnfinitive); b) Р of perception + Inf; c) performative Р + Inf; d) nominal Р with аdjectival or participial nominal part + Inf; e) P with С (object) of perception + Inf; f) specific іnfinitive locutions: Р + à + COD (direct object) + Inf with double control of the infinitive and of the direct object. They established that the contaminated structures are the one-basic (with one transformational chain) transformants of pivotal (primary) polypredicative structure with noun subordinate clause with explicative, causal and comparative-conditional semantic values. They proved that the co(n)textual pertinence of contaminated structures is conditioned by the aspiration of the author to avoid the reactualization of referent-agent and the syntactical complication of contact (intraphrastical) co(n)text. Conclusion. The MU with contamination represent the phenomenologically reconstructed one-basic transformants of microfield of polypredicative pivotal equisubject structure, that author actualizes in the form of reduced syntactically and semantically nuanced discourse innovations according to pragmatic planning of narration that conditions the co(n)textual pertinence contaminated preferential options.

Article Details



Guillaume, G. (1969). Observation and explication in the science of language. Langage et science du langage (Language end science of language), 25–45 (In Fr.)

Timofeev, K. (1950). About essential types of infinitive clauses in modern literary Russian. Voprosyi sintaksisa sovremennogo russkogo yazyika (Questions of syntax of modern Russian), 257–301 (In Russ.)

Abeillé, A. (1998). Rising verbs and auxiliaries in a grammar of adjoining trees. Revue des linguistes de l’Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense (Review of linguists of the University Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense), 39, 119–158 (In Fr.)

Pollard, C. & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rabatel, A. (2003). Verbs of perception in the context of enunciative erasure: from the represented point of view in the represented discourses. Travaux de linguistique (Linguistic works), 46, 49–88 (In Fr.)

Curtis, J.-L. (1976). The noble floor. Paris: Flammarion (In Fr.)

Boulle, P. (1981). The energy of despair. Paris: Julliard (In Fr.)

Barjavel, R. (1988). The reckless traveler. Paris: Éditions Denoёl (In Fr.)

Mauriac, F. (1984). Frontenac Mystery. Рaris: Bernard Grasset (In Fr.)

Cardinal, M. (1965). The Mousetrap. Paris: René Julliard (In Fr.)

Clavel, B. (1983). Whoever wanted to see the sea. Paris: Robert Laffont (In Fr.)

Charolles, M. (2002). Reference and referential expressinons in French. Paris: Éditions Ophrys (In Fr.)

Fuchs, C. (2007). Synonymic relation between polysemes: the network as a manner – fashion. Le français moderne (Modern French), LXXV, 1, 97–113 (In Fr.)

Loti, P. (1986). Icelandic Fisherman. Paris: Calmanne Lévy (In Fr.)

Maurois, A. (1986). Climates. Paris: Grasset (In Fr.)

Bogdanov, V. (1990). Speech communication: pragmatic and semantic aspects. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Leningradskogo universiteta (In Russ.)

Ufimtseva, A. (1962). Experience in studying vocabulary as a system. Moskvа: Akademiya nauk SSSR (In Russ.)

Roslyakova, E. (1992). Semantic function of аdjunctive constructions in modern English. Materialyi mezhdunar. nauch.-praktich. konf. “Lingvisticheskie i metodologicheskie aspektyi prepodavaniya inostrannyih yazyikov (Materials of the Intern. Scientific-practical. Conf. “Linguistic and methodological

aspects of teaching foreign languages”), 154–164. (In Russ.)

Ross, J. (2001). On declarative sentences. Readings in English transformational grammar, 222–272.

Benvenist, E. (1998). Dictionary of Indo-European social terms. Obschaya lingvistika (General Linguistics), 104–114. (In Russ.)

Vincent, D. & Dubois, S. (1997). Daily speech. Québec: Nuit Blanche Éditeur (In Fr.)

Vargas, F. (2006). Leave quickly and come back late. Paris: Éditions Magnard (In Fr.)

Vialar, P. (1984). The sailboat of the islands. Paris: Éditions Denoёl (In Fr.)

Chabrier, J.-E. (1979). Love is always blue. Paris: Pierre Belfond (In Fr.)

Cossé, L. (1981). The rooms of the south. Paris: Gallimard (In Fr.)

Queneau, R. (1963). The last days. Paris: Gallimard (In Fr.)

Laffitte, J. (1983). Those who live. Рaris: Éditions Hier et Aujourd’hui (In Fr.)

Faure, L. (1970). The crazy unhappiness. Paris: René Julliard (In Fr.)