БЫТИЙНЫЕ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ КАК СРЕДСТВО РЕПРЕЗЕНТАЦИИ ТИПОВОЙ ПРОПОЗИЦИИ «СОСТОЯНИЕ ПРИРОДЫ» В РУССКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ

Introduction into the problem

Defining the linguistic status of the ontological category of existentiality and the possibilities of recording it by means of a language as a semiotic system has been a relevant scientific topic both in Russian and foreign linguistics for a long time. Such scholars as N.D. Arutyunova, E. Benveniste, V.B. Borshchev, L. Babby, V.G. Gak, G.A. Zolotova, O. Jespersen, M.V. Malinovich, N.K. Onipenko, E.V. Paducheva, B. Partee, H.V. Patroeva, O.N. Seliverstova, E.N. Shiryaev make up only a part of a long list of those who explored the category of existentiality. Treated as an objective reality that exists irrespective of the human consciousness and closely connected with the man’s concepts about all micro- and macrocosm areas, the category of existence finds its expression in predicates, phrases, sentences, and texts. As existence refers to asserting the fact of something or someone’s being present in the space-time continuum, these are the existential sentences that become most commonly studied signs of such situations, viewed as opposed to other semantic-structural sentence types (those of characterization, procedural meaning and others).

Relevant Scholarship

 In scientific literature the category of existence and existential sentences as a means of its representation are studied from different aspects. So, the semantic structure of existential sentences is analyzed through the prism of correlating the sentence content with the type of the extralinguistic situation; in this way we focus on and actualize the description of the logical and syntactic relations that reflect our ways of thinking about the world and are determined by the internal language structure [2], [3]. There are comparative studies of existential and genitive, existential and local, existential and characterizing types of sentences [10], [12].  The category of existentiality and its linguistic representation in different languages (such as in English, Bulgarian, Danish, Icelandic, Spanish, German, Russian, Thai, Swedish and other) are studied, too  [4], [11], [13], [14]. Studying the text-forming function of existential sentences is also relevant [5], [6]. Due to cognitive syntax study development a new perspective of studying the linguistic status of existence through the prism of a concept – the main cognitive linguistics category – is now being developed [7], [9].

Despite the fact that existential semantics and the means of its expression have been the research focus of attention both of Russian and foreign linguists for many years, still there has not appeared any unified approach to the category of existence. For this reason, the following list of research trends can be considered important and up-to-date: defining a full set of the distinctive features that can enable us to distinguish existential sentences from other types of clauses; studying word-level, phrase-level, sentence-level, and text-level means of verbalizing the onomasiological category of existence; applying a complex analysis method to the study of existential sentences while paying special attention to the multifunctionality and universality of such clauses; identifying the peculiarities of existential sentences in prose and poetry; defining the idioethnic peculiarities of conceptualizing existence-related situations by the linguistic means.

The Hypothesis and its Correspondence to Research Design

The objective of our research is to study the multifunctionality property of existential sentences. The current hypothesis is that “There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme of existential sentences can be used not only for referring to mental images of “the existence of the object” extralinguistic situations but also for denoting some other extralinguistic phenomena, among them the one denoting “the state of nature”.

Method and research materials

The research materials are made up of prosaic and poetic texts of some Russian writers of the 19th- 20th centuries. In course of the research the author has studied more than 1200 examples of existential sentences.

The author used a descriptive analytical method and that of the contextual analysis for doing the research as they are best suited for working with such types of texts.

Results and Discussion

 There exist a large number of syntactic structures in different languages but they are not all used equally by the speakers. According to N.D. Arutyunova, existential sentences are “a favorite form of communication” in the Russian language [1, 229]. For example: В доме был роскошный папин кофр на колесиках, именовавшийся по-военному «тревожным чемоданом»… (Nekrasova. Platit poslednii [It’s the last one who pays]); – Здесь, на месте этого сквера, был дом… (Markova. Chuzhoi zvonok [Strange doorbell]). The basis of existential sentences is the Indo-European “There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme. The signified of this structural scheme is represented by “the existence of the subject/object” typical proposition which – as we can see from the examples above – has three meaning components: “the subject/object of the existence” (кофр, дом) – “the actual existence” (был) – ‘the locus of existence” (в доме, здесь, на месте сквера).

In speech, the studied “There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme can denote not only the phenomenon of an object’s or person’s existence. Let's compare the following examples: –1Жара. 2Безветрие. ˂…˃ 3Над  городом – марево зноя (Tolstoy. Peter Pervyi [Peter the Great]); 4В сердце много грусти и любви (Bunin. Noch pechalna, kak mechty moi [The night is sad, just like my dreams…]); А будут дни – угаснет и печаль, / 5И засинеет сон воспоминанья…(Bunin. Spokoinyi vzor, podobnyi vzoru lani [A quiet look, the one a fallow deer has…]). The first, the second and the third examples denote “nature –  state of nature” extralinguistic situations, the fourth one denotes “an alive creature  – the creature’s psychological state” situation, the last one – “the subject – the subject’s cognitive activity” situation. The form, which is “There+be +Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme, remains the same whereas its meaning changes. Thus, existential sentences reveal their multifunctionality property and represent different typical propositions.

We consider the “state of nature” typical proposition as a mental image of the complex of similar situations of extralinguistic reality that is as a result of a categorizing activity of the human consciousness. In other words, the “state of nature” typical proposition is a mental phenomenon and a special type of a concept that is represented in a language by a complex of several structural schemes. These schemes do not constitute a single homogeneous group if analyzed according to the principle of the scheme’s intentional/unintentional usage for the verbalization of the studied proposition. We wrote about it in [8] in detail. “There+be +Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme is an unspecialized one, which means it is not specifically marked as a scheme for representing “the state of nature” typical proposition (in fact, it is marked as a specialized one for representing “the existence of an object” typical proposition). Still, it is frequently used in speech for performing namely this particular function. The results we obtained while describing verbalization means of “the state of nature” typical proposition made us refer to “There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme as a “There+be+ Noun(state of nature)+AMPlace” scheme, which emphasizes its meaning changes. For example: Такая дивная тишина стоит в степи! (Verbitskaya. Klyuchi schastya [The keys to happiness]); Вдали хмурыми синеватыми тучами стоял зной, и заманчивой полосою струилось марево (Ertel. Zapiski Stepnyaka [Stepnyak's notes]) (the given examples feature states of nature).

“There+be+Noun(state of nature)+AMPlace” structural scheme preserves the three constituents (the locus of existence, the object of existence and the sign of existence; “there” is not a component but an introductory word in corresponding English clauses) characteristic of “There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme. They, however, change their functions. Thus, the “locus of existence” component is viewed as a predicate in the “There+be+Noun(state of nature) +AMPlace” scheme as all the lexemes found in this position contain the seme denoting “state”. These lexemes denote:

1) some “generalized” state of the atmosphere such as ненастье, непогода, погода (weather or bad weather) which is specified by the accompanying attributes: Надо идти и дышать свежим воздухом. Прекрасная погода (Gladilin. Prognoz na zavtra [Forecast for tomorrow]);

2) different “types” of the generalized notion of “bad weather” such as буря, вьюга, гроза, ураган (storm, snowstorm, thunderstorm, hurricane): Мне казалось, буран еще свирепствовал… (Pushkin. Kapitanskaya dochka [The Captain's daughter]);

3) the states of nature that cause human discomfort but do not have any serious  consequences in comparison with the states described in the second group. They include: духота, жара, заморозки, засуха, зной, марево, мороз, холод (sultriness, heat, light morning frosts in mid-autumn or mid-spring, drought, torrid weather, heat haze, frost, cold): …Солнце горело, в воздухе стоял зной… (Leskov. Gora [Mountain]);

4) seasonal, day and night-related states of nature such as мрак, свежесть, сумерки, тишина, тьма, штиль (the dark, freshness, twilight, silence, darkness, calm): Три часа, а уже совсем сумерки от тумана и дождя (Bunin. Neizvestnyy drug [An Unknown friend]).

The semantics of the predicate determines the meaning of the sentences constructed according to “There+be+Noun(state of nature)+AMPlace” structural scheme. By the way the state of nature is revealed in the sentences, the clauses can be classified into several subgroups having the meanings of:

1. “the state of nature associated with the absence or presence of light”: Мрак (Tolstaya. Noch [The Night]);
2. “the state of nature associated with some natural object’s or meteorological space’s being filled/not being filled with something”: Был юг, духота, жаркий Батуми... (Trifonov. Obmen [The Exchange]);
3. “the state of nature associated with the movement of some objects or lack of any movement”: Ветер унялся, и было затишье (Radzinsky. Artemova zamanka [Artem’s bait]);
4. “the state of nature associated with the change of the objects structure”: Про буйство вод, что сменялось долгим затишьем, а потом начиналось выветривание коренных пород (Belavin, Doronin. Zemnaya chasha [The Earth bowl]);
5. “the state of nature associated with a temperature change”: Жара (Makanin. Kavkazskiy plennyi [A Caucasian captive]);
6. “the state of nature demonstrated by the presence/absence of the sounds”: Та же глубокая тишина и мир лежат и на полях… (Goncharov. Oblomov [Oblomov]);
7. a complex state of nature: Началась пурга (Ertel. Zapiski Stepnyaka [Stepnyak's notes]). The sentences of this group have such lexemes as буря, буран, вьюга, метель, непогода, оттепель, ураган, шторм (a storm, a snowstorm, a blizzard, bad weather, thaw, a windstorm) and others. We cannot produce any more state-differentiating criteria as such states of nature can be characterized as combining various features, i.e. we can observe simultaneous presence of various conditions such as sounds, absence of light, temperature rises and falls, and air movement. Such states of nature will be called complex ones. Among them are: буран (a snowstorm), буря (a storm), вьюга (a blizzard), пурга (a synonym for “a blizzard”), метель (the same for вьюга) as all these are a combination of wind, cold and snow; гроза (a thunderstorm) – a combination of thunder, rain, lightning and wind; оттепель (a thaw) – rising of temperature, melting of snow; шторм (a storm at sea) – the movement of waves, the dark, and an overcast sky. In the Russian language such complex states are mostly represented by the varieties of “generalized” bad weather states that are further classified into various storms such as:

 snow storms (Но поднялась вьюга (Merezhkovsky. Voskresshie Bogi. Leonardo da Vinchi [Resurrected Gods. Leonardo da Vinci]));

sandstorms (– Большой песчаный буран будет, – заметил монгол-рабочий, взглянув на небо (Obruchev. Videnie v Gobi [A vision in the Gobi]));

sea storms (Но где-то, должно быть, в море был шторм… (Kassil. Budte gotovy, Vashe vysochestvo! [Be ready, Your Highness!])).

A special subgroup is formed by sentences having the meaning of anthropomorphic states of nature. They include such typical of a man predicates as дремота, истома, печаль, покой, скука, спокойствие (drowsiness, languor, sadness, peace, boredom, calm) and others. For example: Жара и скука лежали на этой арало-каспийской степи… (Platonov. Juvenilnoe more [The Juvenile sea]); Покой и горячая истома на всем (Shukshin. Kukushkiny slezki [The cuckoo’s tears]).  Such metaphorical sentences have become a linguistic expression of the Slavs’ archaic concepts of nature. For example, they believed nature to be alive, to be able to perform some creative functions, they admired it. Another concept was that of the cosmos, society and man’s unity.

The second (AMPlace) component of “There+be+Noun(state of nature) +AMPlace” structural scheme is not seen as a locus of existence but as a locative subject. It is represented by spatial adverbs or prepositional-nominal forms, for example: С ночи не унявшаяся, постоянная здесь пурга… (Astaf’ev. Tsar-ryba [The king fish]); В море был штиль… (Bunin. Nadezhda [The hope]).

The third (be) component establishes the relationship between the subject and the predicate and functions as a copula. It is represented by verbs having the semantics of existence, for example, the verb быть (to be) (В воздухе была теплынь (Trifonov. Oprokinutyi dom [An upside down house])); verbs that have lost their primary meaning and in the found examples function in the meaning of “to exist” (Стояло затяжное ненастье, и в поле все равно делать было нечего (Markov. Strogovy [The Strogovs])); verbs having semes denoting beginning, continuing, and ending in their semantic structures (На другой день начался шторм... (Koval. Krasnaya sosna [The red pine])); lexicalized verbs having both an existential meaning that is their primary meaning and a characterizing meaning which functions as a secondary one (Бушевал буран, не было у темного мира ни земли, ни неба… (Lipatov. Derevensky detektiv [The village detective])).

“There+be+Noun (state of nature)+AMPlace” structural scheme is the basis both for two-part sentences and one-part nominal sentences. From the cognitive point of view, the one-part nominal sentences with the meaning of “the state of nature” do not represent any new structural scheme of a simple sentence because they do not have any new typical proposition. The one-part nominal sentences fulfill a certain stylistic function by creating the effect of the reader’s presence in a certain place at a certain time [3], [7].

Conclusion

“There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” scheme exists in several European languages but it is namely in the Russian language that it “has proved to be very significant for the syntax formation” [1, 237]. Existential sentences have had a significant influence on studying such linguistic areas as the development of the locative subject nomination, the ambiguity of “the subject” interpretation, sentences with an actualized subject-predicate complex that is made up of a lexically significant verb and a non-referent noun.

In course of the study we have come to a number of conclusions that confirmed our current hypothesis. Firstly, “There+be+Noun(object/person)+AMPlace” structural scheme can represent not only the “existence of the object” typical proposition but also the “state of nature” one. Secondly, using this scheme for verbalizing the “state of nature” typical proposition becomes possible due to the specific content of its constitutive components, primarily due to “the object of existence” component which is verbalized by the nouns in the nominative case that have a seme denoting “state” in their semantic structure. This makes it possible for us to classify the specified component as a predicate. Thirdly, “There+be+Noun(object/person) +AMPlace” structural scheme is given a different name – “There+be+Noun(state of nature)+AMPlace” – when representing the “state of nature” typical proposition; it is viewed as an unspecialized sign of the specified proposition representation. Fourthly, the semantics of the predicate leads to distinguishing several groups of sentences following “There+be+Noun(state of nature)+AMPlace” pattern. Clauses having the meaning of a complex state of nature are the most productive group.