Phraseological Units Based on Pseudo-Exhaustion in the Lower Pechora Dialects

The aim of the article is to consider the Lower Pechora subdialect phraseological units, whose construction is based on the procedure of pseudo-exhaustion, i.e. partial enumeration of elements of a semantic set. The Russian subdialects of the Lower Pechora are the speech of the aboriginals of the Ust-Tsilemsky Region of the Komi Republic of the Russian Federation. Fixed expressions which are coordinative phrases with negation are described. The relevance and novelty of the research lie in the fact that this phraseological material has not yet been analysed in a comprehensive manner. So far, scholars have investigated constructions with coordinative conjunctions in comparative, communicative-pragmatic, and other aspects. The Phraseological Dictionary of Russian Dialects of the Lower Pechora compiled by N.A. Stavshina was the main source of the research. The all-Russian phraseological units were taken from Russian phraseological dictionaries. In the article, the author views Russian phraseological units broadly, and therefore such units include idioms, proverbs, and sayings. The research methods are linguistic (synchronous) description, definition analysis, context (distributive) analysis, component analysis, as well as taxonomic and descriptive-comparative methods. The pseudo-exhaustion procedure, which belongs to the category of reinterpretation as one of the components of the category of idiomaticity, is described in the works of A.N. Baranov and D.O. Dobrovolskiy. The research shows that components of constructions with pseudo-exhaustion are in diverse paradigmatic relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, part and whole, and others, as well as in disjunction relations. The author notes that constituent parts of some phraseological units are scripts or are constructed according to the laws of rhythm-and-rhyme harmonization. The author particularly focuses on the semantics of phraseological units in general and of their individual components, including dialect ones, in particular. The author notes that there are more phraseological units with coordinative conjunctions in the dialect than in the literary language. This can be explained by the presence of dialect variants of all-Russian phraseological units. In addition, some phraseological units include dialect components absent in the literary language. The conclusions are the following. (1) The quantitative prevalence of dialectal constructions with pseudo-exhaustion compared to the literary language can be explained by the wide variation of phraseological units in the dialect, which uses both Russian expressions and their dialect variants. The quantitative composition of coordinative constructions with negation expands due to dialect components that are not generally used in the literary language. (2) Most pseudo-exhaustion constructions possess the semantics of negative evaluation. Neutral and positive evaluation expressions are single. It is likely that the development of positive semantics is hampered by the negative structure of coordinative constructions that are based on the pseudo-exhaustion procedure.

Keywords

Authors

References