მარტივი და რთული ქვეწყობილი ტემპორალური დაქვემდებარებული ნაწილით წინადადებების სინონიმია რუსულ და ქართულ ენებში
Loading...
Date
2024-02-14
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა
Abstract
Human thinking is characterized by two types of forms: universal
(general) logical forms of thinking, which do not depend on the structure
of a specific language, and national forms of thinking, which depend on
the grammatical structure of a specific language, and which A. Chesnokov
calls semantic forms of thought. Universal and semantic forms of thought
exist in unity, because they belong to one sphere of thought - the
linguistic sphere. When moving from one language to another, the logical
structure of thoughts does not change, when reflecting the same objective
situation, structural differences are observed that do not play a cognitive
role. This is related to the difference in semantic forms of thought,
which may coincide in different languages and be different in one. Differences
in syntactic structures are due not to differences in objective reality,
but to the specificity of the process of reflecting the facts of objective
reality.
From the standpoint of the content-semantic approach to the study
of the semantic-syntactic structure of the sentence, this syntactic unit is considered simultaneously as a predicate and as a nominative unit that
reflects a certain objective situation. This objective situation reflected by
the proposal G.A. Zolotova calls the typical meaning of the sentence. A
typical value has a hierarchical structure depending on the degree of
generalization of abstraction and can be expressed both by the set of
propositions of one model and by several synonymous models containing
components of equal value but different structure. It is from the
standpoint of the doctrine of the typical meaning of the sentence that
G.A. Zolotova discusses the phenomena of syntactic synonymy.
The sentence model and its typical meaning form an indivisible
unity, the sides of which do not have a single-valued correspondence,
and this leads to the synonymy and homonymy of the sentence models.
Syntactic synonyms can reflect the same typical situation when their
lexical components differ, and they can also reflect the same typical
situation and, at the same time, the same specific situation even when
they contain identical or synonymous lexemes.
A number of sentences that differ in the structure of the thought
expressed in them and the semantic form, but reflect one typical
situation, should be considered syntactic synonyms. The report discusses
the synonymy of simple and complex subordinate clauses with a
temporal dependent part in the Russian and Georgian languages. The
conducted analysis showed us that synonyms of complex sentences with
a temporal dependent part and simple sentences are possible if the
following correspondences exist: a) In a simple sentence, the predicate
part of a complex subordinate sentence corresponds to an abstract noun
of similar semantics; b) the subject of a dependent clause in a simple
sentence corresponds to an attribute that refers to an abstract noun and
is expressed in both languages by a noun or a pronoun in Genitive; c) the
temporary subordinating conjunction corresponds to a preposition in
Russian, and in Georgian to a postposition expressing simultaneity/multi-
temporality, respectively. For example:
Я заметил ее лицо, когда оно появилось над бортом среди сак-
вояжей и сбитых на сторону шляп. (Александр Грин) (multi-temporality)
- Я заметил ее лицо после его появления над бортом среди
саквояжей и сбитых на сторону шляп.
Когда мне понадобится ваше заступничество, Ипполит Алек-
сан-дрович, я вас непременно об этом извещу. (Б. Акунин) (simul taneity) – При надобности в вашем заступничестве, Ипполит Алексан-
дрович, я вас непременно об этом извещу.
„არა, არა, ჩემით...“ ღიმილითვე გაუწოდა ქვითარი და, მუშტარ-
მა ფრთხილად რომ მიიხურა კარი, შევცბი - სულ სხვა კაცი შემომცქე-
როდა, გამომწვევი, უნდო... (გ. დოჩანაშვილი) (multi-temporality) –
„არა, არა, ჩემით...“ ღიმილითვე გაუწოდა ქვითარი და მუშტარის მი-
ერ კარის ფრთხილად მიხურვის შემდეგ შევცბი - სულ სხვა კაცი შე-
მომცქეროდა, გამომწვევი, უნდო...
დილის ათი საათი იქნებოდა, როცა მატარებელი ქალაქის სადგუ-
რის წინ გაჩერდა. (ა. მორჩილაძე) (simultaneity) - დილის ათი საათი
იქნებოდა მატარებლის ქალაქის სადგურის წინ გაჩერებისას.
If the main and dependent parts of a complex subordinate sentence
have the same subject, then in the Russian synonymous simple sentence
it is possible to use the absolutive or an absolutive construction. For
example: Когда я играл, я был исключительно поглощен соображе-
ниями игры. (А. Грин) – Играя, я был исключительно поглощен сооб-
ражениями игры.
Observing the synonymy of complex substructures and simple sentences
also showed us that these synonymous constructions differ not
only in grammatical structures, but also in the semantic forms of thought
Description
Keywords
Citation
თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის დაარსებისადმი მიძღვნილი სამეცნიერო კონფერენცია. თსუ 106, თეზისები, 2024, გვ.: 8-13 / Scientific conference dedicated to the foundation of Tbilisi University. TSU 106, Abstracts, 2024, pp.: 8-13