Ромашки спрятались, поникли лютики : Analyse des structures Sujet – Verbe / Verbe – Sujet en russe contemporain
The article analyses semantic and syntactic relationships in ‘without conjunction constructions’ such as S‑V / V‑S: Ромашки спрятались, поникли лютики. The given construction, in particular, is compared to the construction without inversion: S‑V / S‑V (Ромашки спрятались, лютики поникли.) The author...
সংরক্ষণ করুন:
| প্রকাশিত: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/res, |
|---|---|
| প্রধান লেখক: | , |
| বিন্যাস: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| ভাষা: | Français |
| প্রকাশিত: |
Revue des études slaves
2018
|
| অনলাইন ব্যবহার করুন: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| সংক্ষিপ্ত: | The article analyses semantic and syntactic relationships in ‘without conjunction constructions’ such as S‑V / V‑S: Ромашки спрятались, поникли лютики. The given construction, in particular, is compared to the construction without inversion: S‑V / S‑V (Ромашки спрятались, лютики поникли.) The authors support the hypothesis that the inversion of the subject and predicate is determined not by stylistic needs but semantic and syntactic necessity. By analysing the following facts, it can be established that the statements with the inversion of the subject and predicate V-S are definitely dependent on the context on the left and, as a rule, such statements cannot be used at the absolute beginning of a connected text; most constructions S‑V / V‑S are connected by the attitude of the direct antecedence / consecution, and the replacement of the ‘without conjunction’ connection by the conjunction ‘and’ is impossible or undesirable. Semantically the statements with the order S‑V / V‑S are different from the statements S‑V / S‑V as the actions S‑V and V‑S reflect the two sides of the same event (Лето кончилось, наступила осень), whereas the actions S‑V / S‑V are independent events: Собака заворчала, дети убежали. |
|---|