UDC

81'367.633:81'373.423

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V266

Authors

Anna A. Shirshikova
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin;
ul. Mira 19, Yekaterinburg, 620002, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1185-6395 е-mail: symphonie333@yandex.ru

Abstract

The article describes crossing functional-syntactical homonymy of prepositions, which is a subtype of grammatical homonymy. Only non-derived simple prepositions are analysed here, since prepositions constituting this subclass are the most promising in relation to homonymy according to a number of characteristics. Prepositions are studied in terms of their functioning in three syntactical structures as types of context: syntaxeme (nearest context), word combination (middle context) and utterance (broad context). The study is based on a synthesis of ideas of structuralism, functionalism and cognitivism. The source of practical material is the Russian National Corpus. The paper emphasizes the hierarchical nature of the cognitive semantics of prepositions, which includes up to 4–5 levels. The study found that crossing homonymy is deep in nature; therefore, in order to identify and describe it, one needs to analyse the lowest layers of semantic hierarchy. Since homonymy does not manifest itself (neutralizes) at the upper level (levels), it can be described as non-absolute (incomplete). It is noted that crossing homonymy is closely related to polysemy. The author considers it more appropriate to proceed not from the idea of strict differentiation of these two categories, but from the idea of their correlation, comparison by a number of criteria, of which the functional-syntactical criterion is the most significant: the difference in semantico-syntactical functions performed by prepositions indicates homonymy. Further, it is revealed that adverbial relations make the biggest contribution to homonymy, followed by objective and attributive relations. Prepositional homonymy is found in both different-case and same-case syntaxemes; in different-case syntaxemes it normally lies deeper in the semantic hierarchy. The study allows us to draw a general conclusion about the importance of crossing homonymy in terms of linguistic economy, which is especially relevant nowadays, considering the constantly growing volumes of data transmitted.

Keywords

non-derived simple prepositions, prepositional semantics, grammatical homonymy, functional-syntactical homonymy, crossing homonymy, combined homonymy, polysemy

References

1. Golovnya A.I. Omonimiya kak sistemnaya kategoriya yazyka [Homonymy as a Systemic Category of Language]. Minsk, 2007. 132 p.
2. Tabanakova V.D., Trifonova I.S. Omonimichnost’ estestvenno-nauchnogo termina v diskurse i slovare [Homonymy of a Natural Science Term in Discourse and Dictionary]. Tyumen, 2018. 140 p.
3. Avdina A.I. On Classification of Homonyms (Based on Dictionaries of Homonyms). Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Lingvistika, 2022, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 52–58 (in Russ.).
4. Shirshikova A.A. Funktsional’no-sintaksicheskaya omonimiya pervichnykh prostykh predlogov (na materiale sovremennogo russkogo yazyka) [The Functional-Syntactical Homonymy of Non-Derived Simple Prepositions (on the Material of Modern Russian): Diss.]. Yekaterinburg, 2021. 272 p.
5. Elston-Güttler K.E., Friederici A.D. Ambiguous Words in Sentences: Brain Indices for Native and Non-Native Disambiguation. Neurosci. Lett., 2007, vol. 414, no. 1, pp. 85–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.12.002
6. Gekkina E.N. Sintaksicheskaya omonimiya v delovom diskurse: opyt tipologii pod uglom zreniya ekspertnykh zadach [Syntactic Ambiguity in Business Discourse: The Typology Experience from the Perspective of the Expert Tasks]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 2019, vol. 1, no. 15, pp. 130–142. DOI: 110.30842/alp2306573715106
7. Carr J.W., Smith K., Culbertson J., Kirby S. Simplicity and Informativeness in Semantic Category Systems. Cognition, 2020, vol. 202. Art. no. 104289. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104289
8. Klobukova L.P., Vinogradova E.N. Who Are You, Mr. Russian Preposition? XLinguae, 2022, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 147–165. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2022.15.03.13
9. Baker M.C. The Atoms of Language: The Mind’s Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York, 2001. 256 p. (Russ. ed.: Beyker M. Atomy yazyka: Grammatika v temnom pole soznaniya. Moscow, 2008. 272 p.).
10. Komarova Z.I., Kraev S.V. Yadernye sluzhebnye slova v russkom pod”yazyke informatiki: kvantitativnokvalitativnoe issledovanie [Core Functional Words in the Russian Sublanguage of Information Science: QuantitativeQualitative Research]. Yekaterinburg, 2008. 303 p.
11. Shiganova G.A. Sistema leksicheskikh i frazeologicheskikh predlogov v sovremennom russkom yazyke [The System of Lexical and Phraseological Prepositions in the Modern Russian Language: Diss.]. Chelyabinsk, 2001. 621 p.
12. Shustova S.V., Khorosheva N.V. The Functional Potential of Prepositions and Their Classification Grounds. Res. Result Theor. Appl. Linguist. Ser., 2020, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 48–57 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2020-6-3-0-4
13. Avdina A.I. Leksiko-grammaticheskaya omonimiya predlogov v sostave konstruktsiy “predlog s1 + imya sushchestvitel’noe v roditel’nom padezhe”, “predlog s2 + imya sushchestvitel’noe v vinitel’nom padezhe”, “predlog s3 + imya sushchestvitel’noe v tvoritel’nom padezhe” [Lexico-Grammatical Homonymy of Prepositions in Constructions “Preposition s1 + Noun in the Genitive Case”, “Preposition s2 + Noun in the Accusative Case”, “Preposition s3 + Noun in the Instrumental Case”: Diss.]. Chelyabinsk, 2014. 217 p.
14. Milovanova L.A. Semantiko-grammaticheskie svoystva i otnosheniya predloga ZA1, oformlyayushchego vinitel’nyy padezh, i predloga ZA2, oformlyayushchego tvoritel’nyy padezh, v sovremennom russkom yazyke [SemanticoGrammatical Properties and Relations of the Preposition ZA1 Forming the Accusative Case and the Preposition ZA2 Forming the Instrumental Case in Modern Russian: Diss.]. Chelyabinsk, 2009. 262 p.
15. Kubryakova E.S. Yazyk i znanie: Na puti polucheniya znaniy o yazyke: Chasti rechi s kognitivnoy tochki zreniya. Rol’ yazyka v poznanii mira [Language and Knowledge: Towards Knowledge About Language: Parts of Speech from a Cognitive Point of View. The Role of Language in World Cognition]. Moscow, 2004. 560 p.
16. Arapov M.V. Kvantitativnaya lingvistika [Quantitative Linguistics]. Moscow, 1988. 184 p.
17. Zolotova G.A. Sintaksicheskiy slovar’. Repertuar elementarnykh edinits russkogo sintaksisa [Syntactic Dictionary. A Repertoire of the Basic Units of Russian Syntax]. Moscow, 2011. 440 p.
18. Ivanova E.V. O granitsakh v yazyke [On Boundaries in Language]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2018, no. 7, pt. 1, pp. 133–137. DOI: 10.30853/filnauki.2018-7-1.30
19. Kondrashov N.A. (ed.). Prazhskiy lingvisticheskiy kruzhok [The Prague Linguistic Circle]. Moscow, 1967. 558 p.
20. Croft W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, 1991. 331 p.
21. Zolotova G.A. Ocherk funktsional’nogo sintaksisa russkogo yazyka [Essay on the Functional Syntax of the Russian Language]. Moscow, 1973. 353 p.
22. Shvedova N.Yu. Russkiy yazyk: Izbrannye raboty [The Russian Language: Selected Works]. Moscow, 2005. 640 p.
23. Fillmore C. Delo o padezhe [The Case for Case]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike [News of Foreign Linguistics]. Moscow, 1981. Iss. 10, pp. 369–495.