The sense range of a complex sentence with a subordinate object

The aim of the article The aim of the article is to study the semantic content of a complex sentence with a subordinate object. In Russian syntax a complex sentence with a subordinate object is considered as a polypredicative construction with a conditional connection. Reference (contact) words in the main part are related to certain semantic groups, such as: 1) speech, thought, perception, feeling; 2) evaluation; 3) being, detection. All these predicates are characterized by the object valency. In a semantic sense, sentences of this type represent explicit modus-dictum constructions. Research material The example of one construction is taken to reveal possible variants of the interpretation of the modus meaning of the main predicative unit. Examples for analysis are extracted from the National Corpus of the Russian Language (ruscorpora.ru). The course of the study Besides the abilities of the analyzed construction to express authorization, the method of obtaining information and negative evaluation described in the linguistic literature before, the author also emphasizes the ability to mark a communicative failure. In the construction (I do not understand that.. .) the speaker points out that the interlocutor violated the motivation rule of their speech behavior, which can lead to a break in communication. The same phrase could indicate a violation of the logic and connectivity of the communication. This construction can also show that the interlocutors use different nominations in the speech, which could also result in a communicative failure. Moreover, in the article it is noted that misunderstanding and disapproval of speech behavior of communicants as a replica-reaction allows the speaker to use the form of the verb in both the present and past tenses, but in the perfect aspect only. The form of the verbal tense is not important because of the neutralization of the tense meaning that allows interchanging in this case (I did not understand = I do not understand). It should be emphasized that this modus meaning of the construction is manifested only in the speech mode of interpretation. Conclusions Thus, the analyses allows us to expand our knowledge of the semantics of the explanatory construction. The author also reveals the conditionality of the semantic content of the predicate unit with the lexical meaning of the reference word. The ability of this construction to express the speaker's reflection on the speech activity of the interlocutor is also noted. The sense range of the explanatory construction (I do not understand that . . .) is comprehended in the form of 1P.Sg. only, where it can express the mental state of the subject of speech, the subjective-evaluative attitude of the speaker to the dictum content, and, moreover, it can mark the communicative failure occurred.

Keywords

Authors

References