Logical connectors of the connective word in French. Linking words in French educational and methodological material on the French language (grade 10) on the topic. General mechanism for building argumentation using connectors
Logical articulators in teaching French writing to high school graduates
Written speech is one of the integral types of speech activity, for the training of which 25% of the educational time should be allocated, as well as for other types of RD. Teaching writing becomes especially important at the senior stage of education, sincewriting, being inextricably linked with other types of RD, contributes to the formation of oral monologue speech.
However, when teaching written speech, it is necessary to take into account its specific features. In written speech, the “linguistic nature of a coherent utterance” is manifested more clearly than in other types of RD. This coherence is achieved due to the fact that all individual parts of a sentence, as well as entire sentences, are logically and structurally related to each other. This leads to the most important characteristic of written speech: consistency. A.M. Ivanova believes that “to solve the communicative task of a written statement, it is important not only the presence of all components of the syntactic model, but also their logical connection with each other.” This logical connection is created by nothing other than logical articulators (connecting words). Thus, due to the specific features of written speech, the writer must use logical means of communication many times more often than the speaker.
Logical means of communication or logical articulators are words of various parts of speech that denote a semantic connection between sentences, groups of sentences or phrases of the entire text. All logical means of communication can be divided into two large groups: simple words and expressions. Based on their belonging to a certain part of speech, simple words should be divided into four groups: adverbs, conjunctions, pronouns and prepositions. Expressions, in turn, are divided into allied and adverbial expressions and complex prepositions (see Appendix 1).
Logical articulators help build a compositional structure and logically connect all components of the syntactic model. The more clearly and unambiguously the connection between words and sentences is expressed, “the easier it is to understand the content of the statement.” The lack of means of communication destroys not only the structure, but also the meaning of the text. Articulators play a key role in formally and semantically linking a text, thus ensuring its cohesion and coherence.
“Glues” are extremely important when creating any written text. It is with the help of logical articulators that written speech acquires such characteristics as expansion, consistency, coherence and integrity. Articulators connect together all the syntactic units of the text, giving it logical completeness. Simply put, logical articulators are the connecting link of the entire text.
Currently, in connection with the Unified State Exam in French, even more attention should be paid to the use of logical articulators. In task C2 (“Written statement with elements of reasoning”), the use of means of logical communication, as well as the logical organization of the text, are separate criteria for evaluation and affect the overall grade for this task.
However, as practice shows, the use of logical articulators causes considerable difficulties for students. The set of exercises proposed below is aimed at overcoming this complexity. The exercises we offer include language exercises and one speech exercise.
Language exercises are divided into three types:
1) exercise to fill gaps (substitution);
2) an exercise to combine simple sentences into complex ones;
3) sentence completion exercise.
Among the speech exercises in our exercise system, personal writing is used.
And finally, it should be clarified at what level on the European Language Portfolio scale the presented exercises are designed. The program for secondary schools states that the level of 11th grade graduates must correspond to “Threshold” (B1) or “Threshold Advanced” (B2).
Thus, when compiling the exercises, we focused on level B1.
This system of exercises is addressed to teachers for teaching 11th grade students logical means of communication, as well as to all those who study French and have reached levels B1, B2.
Training exercises
I Choisissez entre deux articulates.
“Parce que” ou “si bien que”
1. Tous ces gens sont des médiocres,ils ont l'esprit entre deux murs, - l'argent et la politique.
2. Elle est arrivée tard elle a manqué le spectacle.
“De sorte que” ou “du fait que”
1. Elle s"inquiétait son mari ne lui a telephoné jusqu"à présent.
2. Je lui ai répondu il ne me pose plus d"autres questions.
“Alors” ou “puisque”
1. Nous refusons ce projet actuellement personne n’est disponible pour le mener à terme.
2. Elle se leva. Il fit comme elle et il s’aperçut qu’elle était fort pȃle.il comprit qu'il lui avait plu depuis longtemps.
“Donc” ou “comme”
1. il avait encore du temps, il entra chez un lithographe qui fabriquait des cartes de visite à la minute.
2. Il devait repartir le surlendemain, ne pouvant demeurer seul avec cette jeune femme dans cette maison. il fallait se hȃter.
"Ainsi" ou "car"
1. Elle achevait à peine sa toilette, qu"elle faisait un peu lentement,elle était très affaiblie et brisée par la crise de la veille.
2. Marie a refusé de me croire. ________ j"ai conclu que tous mes arguments ont été inutiles.
“En effet” ou “enfin”
1. Elle met son appartement en vente, _________ elle va s"installer chez son ami.
2. Ses copains parlaient de l’art, _______ il s’est senti gêné.
“Par suite de” ou “grȃce à”
1. ________ l"incendie, tous les gens ont été évacué.
2. Mes études, je savais faire des statistiques et créer des outils informatiques.
II Complétez les phrases avec les articulates proposés.
Comme | Cependant | Au moment où | D'ailleurs | À cause de |
En consequence | Sauf | Pour | Ensuite | En effect |
1. Maigret la vitre, ne put pas entendre ce qu’elle disait au cocher.
2. Le froid devenait violent, pas assez pour arrêter l'épidémie de fièvre ni pour permettre de patiner.
3. Ne prends pas l'air si féroce, tu as l'air d'un enfant., tu n'as jamais quitté ton enfance.
4. Les heures passaient dans la prison, sans que rien les indique et que rien les marque,les retours du geolier portant les plats.
5. Je retrouvais en lui un peu de cette allure décidée du médecin militaire.il avait d'abord servi dans les rangs de l'armée hongroise, avant d'entrer définitivement dans la vie civile.
6. Il a écrit une lettre à Marie _______ lui demander un rendez-vous.
7. C'était une de ces rudes matinées d'hiver où toute la nature est luisante, cassante et dure un crystal.
8. Duroy retourna s’accouder à la fenêtre, justeun train sortait du tunnel avec un bruit subit et violent.
9. _______ des averses, le lilas s"est épanoui plus tôt.
10. Elle vit d’abord un soulier noir, très ciré, qui étincelait dans l’ombre, puis le pli d’un pantalonSur ce pantalon, à plat, une main.
III Complétez les phrases avec les articulates proposés.
Avant de | Tandis que | Malgré | Par example | Au contraire |
En un mot | Sans que | En cas de |
1. Jacque a demandé à son amie de lui donner une réponse ce jour-là _______ jamais.
2. C'est un homme sur qui on peut compter affaire.
3. Forestier s’en alla de son air pressé,Duroy se mit à monter lentement, marche à marche.
4. En France on compte quelques grands guides gastronomiquesle guide Michelin, le guide Gault-Millau.
5. Conformément aux ordres du roi, vous avez été placée dans une chambre à feu, et il vous sera permis de vous promener sur le rempart que vous voyez, aussi souvent qu’il vous sera agréable._________ nous sommes responsables, non seulement de votre personne, mais de votre santé et de votre voix.
6. Sa fatiuité, il semblait quand même un peu désarçonné.
7. on lui avait demandé pourquoi il avait besoin de voir la femme de chambre, il aurait été en peine de répondre.
8. Norbert de Varenne n'avait pas levé la tête, il semblait n'avoir pas vu ou reconnu Duroy. Jacques Rival,, lui avait serré la main avec une énergie démonstrative.
9. Il avait fréquenté l’école,travailler dans la boutique de son père.
10. Le domestique faisait le service, marchait, allait et venait on entendit ses pieds.
IV Complétez les phrases avec les articulatesurs qui conviennent.
1. Les écoles françaises proposent aux élèves n’ayant accès à aucun des dispositifs existants les jobs en horaires aménagés.la possibilité de travailler quelques heures par semaine dans l’un des services de l’école.
2. Il me faut le premier article pour demain ou après-demain amorcer le public.
3. ils m'acceptaient chez eux, c'était à moi de m'adapter à la situation.
4. Il pleuvait tout été ____ les deux derniers semaines.
5. Il n"avait plus de chapeau sur la tête,, ses cheveux étaient collés sur le sommet du crȃne.
6. Pour devenir journaliste télé il faut aimer les gens. ________ , le journaliste doit être débrouillard, ne pas avoir peur d’être au cœur de l’action, de partir à l’étranger.
7. J "ai senti la mort peu à peu, mois par mois, heure par heure, en me dégradant une maison qui s'écroule.
8. Il avait été soldat, il avait tiré sur des Arabes, sans grand danger pour lui, d’ailleurs, un peu comme on tire sur un sanglier, à la chasse. _________, il avait fait ce qu"il devait faire.
9. Pres-midi, il entrait dans la salle de rédaction, Boisrenard lui tendit le numéro de "La Plume".
10. Le tremblement de terre est l’un des plus desrtucteurs de l’histoire,dans les quartiers les plus peuplé.
11. C'était le printemps le plus chaud. Tous les arbres se sont épanouis une semaine.
12. Il y a des hommes qui vivent des rentes de leurs femmes.
13. Il murmura, ne trouvant point d’autre termeimagine pour exprimer son admiration.
14. Une sorte d'haleine montait de la cave, acide, cidre et calvados, vieille barrique, moisissure,
D'autres odeurs venaient de la cuisine.
15. Il faut que, dans les “Échos, chacun trouve chaque jour une ligne au moins qui l’intéresse, _____ tout le monde les lise.
16. Toutes les statistiques marquent la position favorable des diplômés français des grandes écoles sur le marché de l'emplois. ________ 13% des diplômés des grandes écoles commencent leur carrière à l’étranger.
17. Vous passerez les examens _________ vous travailliez assidûment.
18. _________ vous raterez un examen, tous vos projets d"été s"écrouleront.
19. À l'école Julie s "intéressait à la biologie, à la biochimie ou à la chimie. _______ au vu de sa personnalité, un métier uniquement “de laboratoire” ne lui conviendrait pas, sa profession devant comporter un aspect “relationnel” .
20. Il se mit à faire un article fantaisiste ________ rassurer l’équilibre du budget.
V Reliez les phrases en utilisant “encore que, alors que, quand, à moins que, comme si.”
1. Il remontait la rue de Londres. Il a vu trotter devant lui une petite femme qui avait la tournure de Mme De Marelle.
2. Forestier n'a pas dit un mot de la soirée. Alan déclarait son indifférence complète en matière de politique.
3. Il avait toujours été un frère pour elle. Il en avait souffert.
4. Il respirait d’une façon essoufflée, et parfois poussait une sorte de gémissement.
Il eût voulu rappeler aux autres combien il était malade.
5. Personne n "apprendra cette histoire. Vous-même n"en soufflerez mot.
VI Terminez les phrases.
1. Ils sont entrés dans un café en vue de...
2. Dans cette maison rien n’attirait le regard en dehors de...
3. Il était très malade pourtant...
4. Il se sentait gêné après de...
5. Les parents pensaient que leur fils est parti à Paris pour faire ses études, néanmoins...
6. Vous entrerez dans Universitéà condition que...
7. Elle s’habillait de manière que...
8. C’était un tout petit homme qui avait l’air d’un enfant, bien que...
9. Vous n "obtiendrez pas de travail icià moins que...
10. Il voulait dire à sa femme ses quatre verités, mais...
11. Il allait à toute vitesse sur l’autoroute pendant que...
12. Elle rêvait toujours prendre un chien chez soi, toutefois...
13. Il n’a jamais prêté à personne de l’argent en sorte que...
14. Il est arrivé dans un autre pays de peur que...
15. Michel est venu à l"école en dépit de…
Speech exercise
Votre ami franҫais vous a écrit une lettre, dont voici un extrait:
Quand j’ai commencé à choisir ma future profession, j’éprouvais des difficultés. Je m'intéressais toujours aux sciences naturelles et en même temps à la littérature. Dans mon enfance je rêvais d'être un poète, mais mes parents me disaient que c'était le travail sans perspectives. Et toi, éprouvais – tu des difficultés quand tu choisissais ta future profession? À ton avis, quels sont les critères essentiels pour le choix de future profession? La vocation, les conseils des proches ou quelque chose d"autre?
Ecrivez une lettre à Nicolas en utilisant les articulateurs logiques qui vous aideront à énoncer successivement vos pensées: d"abord, premièrement, deuxièmement, puis, ensuite, de plus, en outre, ainsi, donc, enfin, en somme, en conclusion etc.
List of used literature
- Demyanenko M.Ya., Lazarenko K.A, Melnik S.V. Fundamentals of general methods of teaching foreign languages. Kyiv, 1984. – 254 p.
- Ivanova A.M. Teaching writing in French. M., 1981. – 127 p.
- Komissarov V.N. Modern translation studies. Lecture course. M., 1999. – 192 p.
- Grigorieva E.Ya. French. Programs of general education institutions. 10-11 grades. M., 2009. – 48 p.
- Les connecteurs logiques [Electronic resource]. – electron. Dan. – Access mode: http://www.smeno.com/lyceens/objectif-bac/fiches-revisions/fiches-par-filieres/term-s/francais/grammaire-et-vocabulaire/les-connecteurs logiques.html?tx_jkpoll_pi1 %5Bgo%5D=savevote&tx_jkpoll_pi1%5Buid%5D=21, free. - Cap. from the screen.
Appendix 1. Classification of logical articulators
Addition
Adverbe | Conjunction | Locution adverbiale | Locution conjunctive |
Puis Ensuite Voire Aussi Également Encore | Ni… | De plus En outre D'ailleurs De surcroit Au surplus Bien plus Bien mieux | D'autant plus que |
Alternative
Conjunction | Pronom | Locution adverbiale |
Soit... soit | L"un...l"autre | D"un côté... de l"autre |
Preposition | Locution conjunctive | Locution présitive |
Pour | Athens que De maniere que De peur que De façon à ce que À cette fin que | Afin de En vue de Dans le but de A l'intention Aux fins de |
Cause
Conjunction | Preposition | Locution adverbiale | Locution conjunctive | Locution présitive |
Comme Puisque | En effect | Parce que Vu que Étant donne que Du fait que | A cause de Grace a En raison de |
Classification
Adverbe | Locution adverbiale |
Premium Ensuite Deuxièmement Aprés | D'abord En premier lieu En deuxième lieu En troisième lieu En dernier lieu |
Comparaison
Adverbe | Conjunction | Locution adverbiale | Locution conjunctive |
Pareillement Assez | Comme | Plus que | De meme que Ainsi que Selon que Suivant que En même façon que Moins que Tellement que Comme si |
Concession
Conclusion
Adverbe | Conjunction | Locution adverbiale |
Bref Ainsi Finalement | Donc | En conclusion (de) En somme En sumé En un mot Pour conclure |
Condition
Conjunction | Preposition | Locution adverbiale | Locution conjunctive | Locution présitive |
Avec | Au cas où – 3 | А condition que À moins que Pour pure que Suivant que En admettant que | En cas de |
Consequence
Adverbe | Conjunction | Locution adverbiale | Locution conjunctive | Locution présitive |
Alors Ainsi Enfin | Donc Aussi | Par consequent En consequence De ce fait | Si bien que De sorte que En sorte que De façon que De maniere que Il en découle que C'est pourquoi | Par suite De maniere à Être fonction de |
Illustration
Conjunction | Locution adverbiale | Locution présitive |
Comme | Par example En particulier En d'autres termes | C'est le cas de |
Justification
Adverbe | Conjunction | Locution adverbiale | Locution conjunctive |
Recommended list of dissertations
Discourse and system of coordinating conjunctions in modern French 2009, Doctor of Philology Kudryavtseva, Nadezhda Borisovna
Connective and adversative relations in Russian complex sentences 2008, Candidate of Philological Sciences Danilevskaya, Tatyana Aleksandrovna
Interlevel connections in the system of mono- and polypredicative units: In French in comparison with Russian 1999, Doctor of Philology Epifantseva, Natalia Glebovna
Means of expressing connections and relationships in a non-union complex sentence 2009, Candidate of Philological Sciences Novikova, Natalia Ilyinichna
Functional-semantic field of discourse connectors in modern English 2006, candidate of philological sciences Molchanova, Svetlana Evgenievna
Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Connectors of opposition in the French and Russian languages: A comparative study”
recently published monograph by E. Rudolf Contrast.
In addition, the relevance of describing the relation of opposition and its functioning in language is determined by the development of the semantic direction in modern linguistics and, in particular, by the interest in the semantics of “discursive” or “logical” words, which, without a doubt, include connectors. In this regard, it should be noted that, if some classes of contrastive connectors are quite well studied and described (primarily, connectors “contrary to what was expected”, alternative connectors), then other classes of contrastive connectors, as well as the types of opposition themselves, remained outside the scope of semantic research. We are talking primarily about the relationship between substitution and correction. This dissertation represents the first attempt at a systematic description of the relation of opposition as a whole, combined with a comparative analysis of the means of its expression in French and Russian. The description of the semantics of connectors is carried out taking into account the differences in the types of lexical meaning of these language units. These provisions determine the theoretical significance and novelty of the study.
The empirical" material for describing the relationship of opposition was the works of French and Russian writers, press materials, official documents and, to a small extent, oral speech. The corpus of examples amounted to about 3000 units8. In addition, in the process of description, to illustrate some provisions, we resorted to the ones we created examples. In order to determine the conditions for using a particular connector, as well as its semantic features, we used tests that allow us to judge the degree of acceptability of the connector in a particular context from the point of view of the norms of the French and Russian languages. For this purpose, we made changes to the first one. or the second component of the utterance, replaced the utterance with a connector with an utterance without a connector, or replaced the connector with a synonymous one.
The subject of the study also determined its structure: in the first two chapters we
8 We were only interested in free combinations built according to the models of complex sentences that exist in a given language. Therefore, we did not consider statements like Look, I looked at her article, but didn’t read it, or When, when, and on the day of arrival, such a conversation is not appropriate, which in the existing literature on this issue are classified as “phraseologized constructions” [Shvedova 1960, 269 ff. ], “concessive-adversive phrase schemes” [Bulygina & Shmelev 1997, 310-315], “connected” syntactic constructions [Shmelev 1960]; see also Makarenko 1981, Paillard D. & Plungyan 1993. A distinctive feature of these sentences is that, firstly, in such constructions the connections and relationships of the components turn out to be inexplicable from the point of view of the living rules of grammar, and, secondly, parts of such sentences can be constructed according to special patterns, according to which simple sentences or parts of complex sentences cannot be constructed [AG-80, II, 217]. we define the key concepts for this work - “connector” and “opposition”; and chapters III-VII, respectively, are devoted to a comparative description of the semantics of types of opposition. Moreover, in some chapters more attention is paid to the semantics of synonymous connectors (for example, the relation “contrary to what was expected”, to a lesser extent, the relation of alternative), while in others, the main attention is paid to the definition of the type of opposition itself (the relation of substitution, correction). It depends on the degree of development of concepts. Thus, as noted above, a huge amount of research has been devoted to the “contrary to expectations” attitude; Our task therefore included not so much a definition of the relation itself, but a comparative (intralingual and interlingual) description of the connectors of a given class. The concept of “substitution,” on the contrary, has practically not been developed, especially in relation to the Russian language, and, consequently, the semantics of the corresponding linguistic means has not been described. The same can be said about the correction relationship, in the description of which much attention was paid to the functioning of adversative conjunctions capable of conveying this type of relationship, and not to the definition of the relationship itself. Therefore, in these chapters we paid great attention to describing the features of these types of opposition.
What might be the results and practical implications of this study? These include:
Description of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of a significant class of connectors that has not yet been sufficiently studied;
Creation of the necessary conceptual apparatus for a better understanding of the logical organization of the text;
Description, including from a didactic point of view, of some “incorrect” formations, both erroneous and stylistically justified: cf. (5), which is a translation from French, where, apparently, under the influence of the original text, the translator instead of the conjunction a used the conjunction and, and (6) from Zadig, where Voltaire deliberately contrasts the verbs “admirer” and “aimer”:
5) Legs allow men to walk??and women to pave the way (.MK)
6) On I "admirait, et cependant on I"aimait (Voltaire).
In addition, a comparative analysis of the connectors of the French and Russian languages allows:
Identify similarities and differences in the use of linguistic means by each of the compared languages;
Study the specific features of each language, since a comparative description, according to the fair remark of V. G. Gak, “sometimes makes it possible to identify some features of a foreign and native language that escape during their “internal” study” [Gak 1989, 10];
Establish general patterns and facts characteristic of different languages, identify linguistic universals and the possibilities of their implementation in specific languages. “This approach allows us to distinguish what is universal from what is specific in the language being studied, to better understand the structure of human language as a whole, the patterns of human language activity, which has important philosophical and general educational significance” [Gak 1989, 10].
Similar dissertations in the specialty "Romance languages", 02/10/05 code VAK
Functional-semantic features of coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of an independent sentence: Based on the material of adversative conjunctions in French and Spanish 2002, candidate of philological sciences Prudnikova, Anna Mikhailovna
Compound sentences of the adversative type in systemic and textual aspects 2010, Doctor of Philological Sciences Bakalova, Zinaida Nikolaevna
Derivations of the union if: Based on the material of the most frequent service formations that arose on the basis of if 2004, Candidate of Philological Sciences Semenova, Inna Vladimirovna
Structural and semantic features of complex sentences with adversative attitude in modern French 1984, Candidate of Philological Sciences Kochkina, Alevtina Nikolaevna
Semantics of adversarialism and means of its expression in the Russian language 2011, Doctor of Philological Sciences Milovanova, Maria Stanislavovna
Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Romance languages”, Inkova-Manzotti, Olga Yurievna
conclusion
Unfortunately, the volume of work did not allow for an exhaustive comparative analysis of all contrastive connectors of the French and Russian languages, but we hope that in the future such a description will certainly be created on the basis of the research carried out and using the developed conceptual apparatus and the proposed methodology.
The results of this study may also be useful for creating a general typology of connectors in both French and Russian languages, since the mechanisms involved in the creation of opposition relations also operate in the creation of other types of semantic relations between utterances. So, for example, one of the criteria for identifying types of opposition is the type of implementation of the components: both components can exist (as, for example, in the case of reverse use) or there is only one component (for example, in the case of a substitution relation). The same mechanisms operate in other types of semantic relations. Thus, the use of reellement, which does not belong to the class of oppositional connectors, presupposes the implementation of both components (Pierre avait I "air tres content quand je lui ai propose d"aller voir Lea. Reellement il voulait la voir), and the use of de toute fagon, on the contrary, as if it crosses out the information that is reported in the first component, depriving it of significance (cf. Pierre avait refuse d "aller a la reunion. De toute fagon elle a ete annulee).
On the other hand, if we use the “direction of logical dependence” criterion proposed to describe the relationship “contrary to what is expected,” then we can distinguish two types of connectors that involve the implementation of both components: the first will include connectors that represent the second component in one aspect or another relative to the first (for example, a and contraire represents the second component as diametrically opposed to the first), and the second type will include connectors that give one or another status, on the contrary, to the first component (for example, done represents the first component as a prerequisite for the conclusion contained in the second component). Thus, the conducted research opens up prospects for creating a general typology of connectors as a functional class.
List of references for dissertation research Doctor of Philological Sciences Inkova-Manzotti, Olga Yurievna, 2001
1. Agayan P. Ts. Expression of logical connectives and quantifiers in natural language. // Methodological problems of language analysis. Yerevan, 1976. pp. 262-278
2. Alisova T. B. Essays on the syntax of the modern Italian language. M., 1971
3. Apresyan Yu. D. Selected works, volume I. Lexical semantics: 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1995
4. Apresyan Yu. D. Selected works, volume II. Integral description of language and system lexicography: 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1995
6. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Works in four volumes. T. 1. M., 1978
7. Aristotle. About interpretation. Works in four volumes. T. 2. M., 1978. P. 91-117
8. Aristotle. Topeka. Works in four volumes. T. 2. M., 1978. P. 347-533
9. Arutyunova N. D. The concept of presupposition in linguistics // Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Series of literature and language, 1973, vol. 32, no. 1. pp. 84-89
10. Arutyunova N. D. Sentence and its meaning. M., 1976
11. Arutyunova N. D. On the problem of functional types of lexical meaning. //Aspects of semantic research. M., 1980. P. 156-250
12. Arutyunova N. D. Addressee factor. Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series of literature and language, 1981, vol. 40, no. 4. pp. 356-367
13. Arutyunova N. D. Comparative assessment of situations // News of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Series of literature and language, 1983, vol. 42, no. 4. pp. 330-341
14. Arutyunova N. D. Anomaly and language: (to the problem of the linguistic “picture of the world”) // Questions of linguistics, 1987, No. 3. P. 3-19
15. Arutyunova N. D. Types of linguistic meanings: Assessment. Event. Fact. M., 1988
16. Arutyunova N. D. Secondary truth estimates: correct, correct II Logical analysis of language. Mental actions. M., 1993. pp. 67-77
17. Aspects of general and particular linguistic theory of text. M., 1982
18. Astakhova L. I. About a compound sentence // Questions of linguistics, 1993, No. 1. P. 87-96
19. Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M., 1969
20. Babalova L. L. On the use of conjunctions I, A, BUT in a complex sentence // Russian language abroad, 1980, No. 4. pp. 57-62
21. Bakalova 3. N. Correlation of complex sentences with conjunctions A and BUT in the semantic sphere of inconsistency // Syntactic connections in the Russian language. Vladivostok, 1981. P. 35-51
22. Bally 111. General linguistics and issues of the French language. M., 1955
23. Baranov A. N., Kobozeva I. M. Modal particles in answers to questions // Pragmatics and problems of intensionality. M., 1988. P. 45-70
24. Baranov A. N., Plungyan V. A., Rakhilina E. V. A guide to discursive words of the Russian language. M., 1993
25. Baranov A. N., Sergeev V. M. Linguistic and pragmatic mechanisms of argumentation // Rationality, reasoning, communication. Kyiv, 1987. pp. 22-41
26. Barchunova T. N. Experience in logical reconstruction of the semantics of causal and concessional constructions // Logical analysis of natural language. Vilnius, 1982. pp. 99-103
27. Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979
28. Beloshapkova V. A. Complex sentence in modern Russian. M., 1967
29. Beloshapkova V. A. Proposals of alternative motivation in the modern Russian language // Research on the modern Russian language. M., 1970. S. 13-24
30. Beloshapkova V. A. Modern Russian language. Syntax. M., 1977
31. Benveniste E. General linguistics. M., 1974
32. Biryukov B.V. Gottlob Frege’s theory of meaning // Application of logic in science and technology. M., 1960. P. 502-555
33. Boguslavsky I.M. Negation and opposition // Problems of structural linguistics 1980. M., 1982. pp. 63-75
34. Boguslavsky I. M. Research on syntactic semantics: Spheres of action of logical words. M., 1985
35. Boguslavsky I.M. On the pragmatics of syntax, or one way to resolve a syntactic conflict // Pragmatics and problems of intensionality. M., 1988. P. 70-124
36. Boguslavsky I. M. Scope of lexical units. M., 1996
37. Bondarko A. V. Grammatical meaning and meaning. L., 1978
38. Brudny A. A. The meaning of the word and the psychology of opposition // Semantic structure of the word: Psycholinguistic studies. M., 1971. S. 19-27
39. Bulakhovsky L. A. Course of Russian literary language. 1-2 vols. Kyiv, 1952-53
40. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Language conceptualization of the world (on the material of Russian grammar). M., 1997
41. Weinreich U. On the semantic structure of language // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. V. M., 1970. S. 163-249
42. Valgina N. S. Syntax of the modern Russian language. M., 1978
43. Van Dyck T. Questions of text pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. VIII. M., 1978. S. 259-336
44. Vasilevskaya N. B. On the contrary // Discursive words of the Russian language: experience of contextual-semantic description / Ed. K. Kiseleva and D. Payara. M., 1998. pp. 108-114
45. Vasilenko L. I. When we say: “of course”, “maybe”. Minsk, 1990
46. Vakhtel N. M. On the meaning and use of the conjunction when as part of complex sentences // Semantics of function words. Perm, 1982. pp. 16-23
47. Wierzbicka A. Metatext in the text // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. VIII. M„ 1978. P. 402-425
48. Wierzbicka A. From the book “Semantic Primitives” Introduction // Semiotics. M., 1983. S. 225-252
49. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language: (Grammatical doctrine of the word). M., 1972
50. Vinogradov V.V. On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language // Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Research on Russian grammar. M., 1975. S. 53-87
51. Vinogradov V.V. Main types of lexical meanings // Vinogradov V.V. Lexicology and lexicography. M., 1977
52. Vinokur T. G. Speaker and listener. Variants of speech behavior. M., 1993
53. Wittgenstein L. Logical-philosophical treatise. M., 1958
54. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical studies // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVI. M., 1985. P. 79-128
55. Wolf E. M. Functional semantics of assessment. M., 1985
56. Wolf E. M. Evaluative value and the ratio of signs “good / bad” // Questions of linguistics, 1986, No. 5. P. 98-106
57. Vyatkina N. B. The problem of meaning in logic and semiotics // Logical analysis of natural language. Vilnius, 1982. pp. 141-143
58. Gavrilova G. F. Functions of coordinating conjunctions in simple and complex sentences // Functions and conditions for the use of cohesive means in modern Russian. Tyumen, 1987. pp. 4-8
59. Gavrilova G. F. On the problem of negative statements // Lomonosov Readings 1994 / Under the general. ed. M. L. Remnevoy. M., 1994. S. 152-153
60. Gavrilova N. V. On the issue of the role of connectors in the organization of discourse // Semantic and pragmatic aspects of linguistic units and speech structures. Abstracts of reports: Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1987. pp. 5-6
61. Gak V. G. Semantic structure of a word as a component of the semantic structure of a statement // Semantic structure of a word: Psycholinguistic studies. M., 1971. S. 78-96
62. Gak V. G. Statement and situation // Problems of structural linguistics 1972. M., 1973. P. 349-372
63. Gak V. G. Russian language in comparison with French. M., 1975
64. Gak V. G. On the problem of comparative typological analysis of speech acts and text // Comparative linguistics and teaching a non-native language. M., 1987. pp. 37-48
65. Gak V. G. Comparative typology of the French and Russian languages. M., 1989
66. Gak V. G. Truth and people // Logical analysis of language. Truth and authenticity in culture and language. M., 1995. pp. 24-31
67. Gak V. G. Language transformations. M., 1998
68. Gak V. G. Theoretical grammar of the French language. M., 2000
69. Galperin I. R. Text as an object of linguistic research. M., 1981
70. Gaft R.I. Dialogical reactions as a reflection of the perception of a speech act //Dialogue interaction and presentation of knowledge. Novosibirsk, 1985. P. 110-126
71. Gvozdev A. N. Modern Russian literary language. Syntax. M., 1973. Part II
72. Gladky A.V. On the meaning of the union or // Semiotics and computer science. M., 1979, issue. 13. pp. 196-214
73. Glovinskaya M. Ya. Semantic types of specific oppositions of the Russian verb. M., 1982
74. Grice P. Logic and speech communication // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVI. M., 1985. S. 217-237
75. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1970
76. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1956
77. Dressler V. Text syntax // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. VIII. M., 1978. S. 111-138
78. Jespersen O. Philosophy of Grammar. M., 1958
79. Zhilyaeva T. G. On the forms of interaction of introductory words with the composition of a complex sentence // Problems of grammatical semantics. Rostov n/d., 1978. P. 93-97
80. Zvegintsev V. A. Sentence and its relation to language and speech. M., 1976
81. Zvegintsev Vladimir. Natural language from the point of view of logic and linguistics // Language, science, philosophy. Logical-methodological and semiotic analysis. Vilnius, 1986. pp. 23-35
82. Zemskaya E. A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and problems of teaching. M., 1979
83. Zemskaya E. A., Kitaigorodskaya M. V., Shiryaev E. N. Russian colloquial speech. General issues. Word formation. Syntax. M., 1981
84. Zolotova G. A. Essay on the functional syntax of the Russian language. M., 1973
85. Zolotova G. A. Communicative aspects of Russian syntax. M., 1982
86. Ivanova T.K. Functions of particles and only in the modern Russian language: Abstract of thesis. Ph.D. philologist, science. Blagoveshchensk, 1970
87. Ivin A. A. Foundations of the logic of assessments. M., 1970
88. Ivin A. A. Logic of norms. M., 1973
89. Ilya L. I. Syntax of the modern French language. M., 1962
90. Ilya L.I. French Grammar. M., 1964
91. Inkova O. Yu. Au contraire and its synonyms // Moscow State University: Reports at the Lomonosov Readings, 1996
92. Inkova O. Yu. Substitution connectors in the French language // Current problems of novelistics: Sat. articles. Smolensk, 1998. pp. 14-19
93. Inkova O. Yu. The relationship of opposition: from grammar to stylistics // Rhetoric in the light of modern linguistics. Abstracts of reports of the interuniversity conference (May 13-14, 1999). Smolensk, 1999. pp. 31-32
94. Inkova-Manzotti O. Yu. The relationship of alternative (based on the material of the French and Russian languages) // Moscow State University: Reports at the Lomonosov Readings, 2000
95. Inkova-Manzotti O. Yu. Semantics of antithetical opposition // Rhetoric in the light of modern linguistics. Abstracts of reports of the interuniversity conference (May 14-15, 2001). Smolensk, 2001
96. Inkova-Manzotti O. Yu. Relation of opposition: definition, typology and conditions of occurrence // “Rhetoric and Linguistics”. Sat. articles. Smolensk, 2001 (in print)
97. Ionice M. P. Glossary of contextual connections. Chisinau, 1981
98. Ishmuratov A. T. Logical analysis of practical reasoning: (formalization of psychological concepts). Kyiv, 1987
99. Itskovich V. A. Essays on syntactic norms. M., 1982
100. Yokoyama O. To the analysis of Russian coordinating conjunctions // Logical analysis of language. Inconsistency and anomalousness of the text. M., 1990. S. 190-194
101. Carlson L. Connective conjunction but II New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVIII. M., 1986. S. 277-299
102. Kiseleva K. L., Payar D. Discursive words of the Russian language: experience of contextual-semantic description. M., 1998.
103. Kiefer F. About presuppositions // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. VIII. M., 1978. S. 337-370
104. Klopova E. S. Features of the interaction of function words in construction (conjunction and qualifier) // Functions and conditions for the use of cohesive means in modern Russian. Tyumen, 1987. pp. 19-30
105. Kobozeva I. M. Linguistic semantics. M., 2000
106. Kovtunova I. I. Modern Russian language. Word order and actual division of sentences. M., 1976
107. Kodzasov S. V. Intonation of sentences with discursive words // Baranov A. N., Plungyan V. A., Rakhilina E. V. Guide to discursive words of the Russian language. M., 1993. S. 182-204
108. Kolosova T. A. About two plans for analyzing the semantics of complex sentences // Research on the modern Russian language. M., 1970. S. 121-131
109. Kolosova T. A. Russian complex sentences of asymmetric structure. Voronezh, 1980
110. Kolshansky G.V. Contextual semantics. M., 1980
111. Kolshansky G.V. Objective “picture of the world” in knowledge and language. M., 1990
112. Kondakov N. I. Logical dictionary-reference book. M., 1975
113. Kopylenko I. M. Brief history and problems of studying particles // Problems of theory and methods of teaching foreign languages and literary criticism. Alma-Ata, 1978. pp. 66-78
114. Korelskaya T. D., Paducheva E. D. Transformations in symmetrical structures: composition and ellipsis // NTI, ser. 2, No. 9. M., 1973. P. 29-38
115. Kreidlin G. E., Paducheva E. V. Meaning and syntactic properties of the conjunction a // NTI, ser. 2, No. 9. M„ 1974. P. 31-37
116. Kreidlin G. E., Paducheva E. V. Interaction of associative connections and actual division in sentences with the conjunction a // NTI, ser. 26, No. 10. M., 1974. P. 32-37
117. Kreidlin G. E. Lexeme even II Semiotics and Informatics, vol. 6. M., 1975. P. 102-115.
118. Kreidlin G. E. Meaning and use of the word vice versa // Semiotics and Informatics, vol. 7. M., 1976. P. 79-92
119. Kreidlin G. E. Functional words in the Russian language (semantic and syntactic aspects of their study): Abstract of thesis. . Candidate of Philological Sciences M., 1979
120. Kreidlin G. E. Service and drill words // Semantics of service words. Perm, 1982. pp. 106-113
121. Kreidlin G. E., Polivanova A. K. On the problem of comparability of lexicographic descriptions of function words // Problems of structural linguistics: 1984. M., 1984. pp. 83-91
122. Krivonosov A. T. Language. Logics. Thinking (Inference in natural language). Moscow New York, 1996
123. Kudryavtseva N. B. On the status of adversative constructions in the French language // French language: theoretical and applied aspects (interuniversity collection of articles). M., 1994. S. 72-82
124. Kuznetsova I. N. Practical course of comparative grammar of Russian and French languages. M., 1987
125. Lyons J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. M., 1978
126. Latysheva A. N. Semi-Union? Union? Particle? // Lomonosov readings 1994 I Under general. ed. M. L. Remnevoy. M., 1994. S. 154-157
127. Levin Yu. I. About one group of conjunctions of the Russian language // Machine translation and applied linguistics. Vol. 13. M., 1970. P. 64-88
128. Levitsky Yu. A. Semantics of Russian coordinating conjunctions // Problems of structural linguistics 1978. M., 1981. pp. 83-91
129. Levitsky Yu. A. About markers and connectors // Semantics of function words. Perm, 1982. pp. 113-122
130. Leikina B. M. On the problem of interaction of linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge in the comprehension of speech // Linguistic problems of functional modeling of speech activity. L., 1974. Issue. 2. pp. 97-110
131. Leikina B. M. Some functions of the word I // Linguistic problems of functional modeling of speech activity. L., 1979. Issue. 4. P.38.46
132. Leontyev A. A. Statement as a subject of linguistics, psycholinguistics and communication theory // Text syntax / Rep. ed. G. A. Zolotova. M., 1979. P. 18-37
133. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. V. N. Yartseva. M., 1990
134. Logical analysis of language. Inconsistency and anomalousness of the text. M., 1990
135. Lyapon M.V. Semantic structure of a complex sentence and text. M., 1986
136. Makarenko E. V. Related constructions of adversative-contrastive sentences in the modern Russian language and the textual aspect of their study // Syntactic connections in the Russian language. Vladivostok, 1981. pp. 51-58
137. McCauley J. D. Logic and dictionary // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XIV. M., 1983. S. 177-200
138. Maruso J. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M., 1960
139. Melchuk I. A. Russian language in the “Meaning-Text” model. Moscow-Vienna, 1995
140. Mikheev M. Yu. Argumentation “quasi-logical” relation in language // NTI, ser. 2, No. 10, 1988. pp. 28-30
141. Mikheeva N. S. On the question of the boundaries of simple and complex sentences in modern Russian. Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1974
142. Morozkina O. B. Semantic conditions for the use of conjunctions I, A, BUT // Complex sentence. Kalinin, 1979. pp. 60-69
143. Moskalskaya O. I. Problems of systemic description of syntax. M., 1981a
144. Moskalskaya O. I. Text grammar. M., 19816
145. Neira, A. X. The relationship between parataxis and hypotaxis in French and Russian. Author's abstract. diss. . Ph.D. philological sciences M., 1982
146. Nikolaeva T. M. Functions of particles in a statement. M., 1985
147. Novikov L. A. Logical opposition and lexical antonymy // Russian language at school, 1966, No. 4. P. 79-87
148. New in foreign linguistics: vol. VIII. Linguistics of text. M., 1978
149. New in foreign linguistics: vol. XVIII. Logical analysis of natural language. M., 1986
150. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language / Ed. N. Yu. Shvedova. 22nd ed., erased. M., 1990
151. Orlov A. E., Cheremisina M. I. Contact combinations of conjunctions and particles in the Russian language: (towards the formulation of the problem) // Polypredicative constructions and their morphological base. Novosibirsk, 1980. P. 208-223
152. Austin J. L. The word as an action // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVII. M., 1986. P. 22-131
153. Pavilionis R.I. Problems of meaning: Modern logical and philosophical analysis of language. M., 1983
154. Paducheva E. V. Experience in logical analysis of the meaning of the union OR // Scientific. report higher school Philol. Sciences, 1964. No. 6. P. 145-148
155. Paducheva E. V. The concept of presumption in linguistic semantics // Semiotics and Informatics, vol. 8. M., 1977. P. 91-124
156. Paducheva E. V. Pragmatic aspects of the coherence of dialogue // Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Series of Literature and Language, 1982, No. 4, vol. 40. P. 305-313
157. Paducheva E. V. On the semantics of syntax. M., 1974
158. Paducheva E. V. Statement and its correlation with reality (referential aspects of the semantics of pronouns). M., 1985
159. Paducheva E. V. Semantic studies (Semantics of time and aspect in the Russian language; Semantics of narrative). M., 1996
160. Payar D. On two aspects of truth in statements with discursive words // Logical analysis of language. Truth and authenticity in culture and language. M., 1995. S. 133-138
161. Pelletier F. J. Or // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVIII. M., 1986. P. 318-335
162. Peltz E. Semiotics and logic // Semiotics. M., 1983. pp. 137-150
163. Peretrukhin V. N. Problems of the syntax of homogeneous members of a sentence in modern Russian. Voronezh, 1979
164. Peshkovsky A. M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M., 1936
165. Podlesskaya V.I. On universal criteria for identifying conjunctions as parts of speech // Parts of speech. Theory and typology. M., 1990. S. 111-119
166. Popov F.V. Not but as a coordinating conjunction // Brief essays on the Russian language. Scientist zap. Kursk ped. Institute, 1970. T. 2, N9 3.
167. Popov F.V. On the semantic and stylistic features of coordinating conjunctions with “not that (would)” in the first part // Philol. Sciences. Questions of syntax of the Russian language. Tambov, 1973. pp. 150-153
168. Pragmatics and problems of intension. Rep. ed. N. D. Arutyunova. M., 1988
169. Priyatkina A.F. Constructive features of the conjunction a in a simple sentence of the Russian language // Research on the modern Russian language. M., 1970. S. 190-205
170. Priyatkina A.F. On the difference between the conjunction and other connecting means // Russian language at school, 1977, No. 4. P. 102-106
171. Priyatkina A. F. Complicated simple sentence. Vladivostok, 1981
172. Referovskaya E. A. Syntax of the modern French language. L., 1969
173. Referovskaya E. A. Linguistic studies of text structure. L., 1983
174. Referovskaya E. A. Communicative structure of the text. L., 1989
175. Referovskaya E. A., Vasilyeva A. K. Theoretical grammar of the French language. Part II. Syntax. L., 1973
176. Rogozhnikova R.P. Gradational unions in the Russian language // Russian language at school, 1971, No. 3. P. 84-89
177. Russian grammar (Editorial collection: N. Yu. Shvedova and others) - M., 1980. volume II. Syntax
178. Sannikov V. 3. Coordinative and comparative constructions: their proximity, their syntactic representation. Part 1. // Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Bd. 4, 1979. P. 413-431; Bd. 5, 1980. P. 221-241
179. Sannikov V. 3. On the formal presentation of Russian coordinating and comparative constructions // Formal description of the structure of natural language. Novosibirsk, 1980. P. 20-38
180. Sannikov V. 3. Semantics and pragmatics of the union or II Semiotics and Informatics, vol. 24. M., 1985. P. 117-141
181. Sannikov V. 3. The meaning of Russian divisional unions. M., Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Preliminary publications of the problem group on experimental and theoretical linguistics. Vol. 169. 1986
182. Sannikov V. 3. The meaning of the union but: a violation of the “normal” state of affairs // Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Series of Literature and Language, 1986, No. 5. P. 433444
183. Sannikov V. 3. The semantic component of “norm” in the meaning of Russian coordinating conjunctions // Questions of cybernetics. M., 1987
184. Sannikov V. 3. Russian compositional structures. Semantics. Pragmatics. Syntax. M., 1989
185. Sakhno S. L. Types of polyphonic relations in discourse // Semantic and pragmatic aspects of linguistic units and speech structures. Abstracts of reports: Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1987. pp. 40-41
186. Semantics of function words. Perm, 1982
187. Serebryannaya F.I. Gradational unions in the modern Russian language // Philological Sciences, 1969, No. 6. P. 72-84
188. Serebryanaya F.I. On the issue of the formation of complex coordinating conjunctions on the basis of non-derivatives // Research on the modern Russian language. M., 1970. P.227-240
189. Serebryannaya F.I. On the question of the structure of the gradation series // Russian language at school, 1972, No. 2. P. 89-93
190. Serebryannaya F.I. Not only about the communicative division of complex sentences with a conjunction. but also II Questions of the theory and history of language. Tashkent, 1984
191. Searle J. R. What is a speech act? // Foreign linguistics. II. M., 1999. pp. 210-228
192. Searle J.R. Classification of illocutionary acts // Foreign linguistics. II. M., 1999. pp. 229-253
193. Searle J.R. Indirect speech acts // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVII. M., 1986. S. 195-222
194. Dictionary of modern Russian literary language (BAS). Tt. 1-17, M.; L., 1948-1965
195. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. (MAC) / Ed. A. P. Evgenieva. M., 1981
196. Spector T. R. Sentences with homogeneous nominal predicates:
198. Stepanov Yu. S. Methods and principles of modern linguistics. M., 1975
199. Stepanov Yu. S. In search of pragmatics: the problem of the subject // News of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series of literature and language, 1981, vol. 40, no. 4. pp. 325-332
200. Stolneiker R. S. Pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVI. M., 1985. S. 419-438
201. Strawson P. F. Intention and convention in speech acts // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVII. M., 1986. P. 131-151
202. Strugovets I.V. Logical structure of reasoning and grammatical means of its organization // Semantic organization of grammatical units in Romano-Germanic languages. Sat. scientific works Krasnoyarsk, 1987. pp. 127-134
203. Sapir E. Graduation: Semantic research // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVI. M., 1985. S. 43-78
204. Tenier L. Fundamentals of structural syntax. M., 1988
205. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / Ed. D. Yu. Ushakova. In 4 vols. M., 1940
206. Whorf B. L. Linguistics and logic // New in linguistics. Vol. I. M., 1960. S. 183-198
207. Fedorov A.K. The meaning and syntactic role of conjunctions “while”, “whereas”, “meanwhile” // Russian language at school, 1972, No. 1. P. 95-100
208. Frege G. Meaning and denotation // Semiotics and computer science, vol. 8. M., 1977. P. 181-210
209. Frege G. Concept and thing (Begriff und Gegenstand) // Semiotics and computer science, vol. 10. M., 1978. P. 188-205
210. Frege G. Thought: a logical study // Philosophy. Logics. Language. M., 1987. P. 18-47
211. French in the light of the theory of speech communication / Ed. T. A. Repina. St. Petersburg, 1992
212. Functions and conditions for the use of cohesive means in modern Russian. Tyumen, 1987
213. Kholodov N. N. Compound sentences with the conjunction only, synonymous with the conjunction but II Russian language at school, 1970, No. 6. P. 83-88
214. Kholodov N. N. Compound sentences in modern Russian. Part I-II. Smolensk, 1975
215. Cheremisina M.I. Some questions of the theory of complex sentences. Novosibirsk, 1979
216. Cheremisina M. I., Kolosova T. A. Essays on the theory of complex sentences. Novosibirsk, 1987
217. Shatunovsky I. B. Semantics of sentences and non-referential words (meaning, communicative perspective, pragmatics). M., 1996
218. Shakhmatov A. A. Syntax of the Russian language. L., 1925-27
219. Shvedova N. Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. M., 1960
220. Shmelev D.I. About “connected” syntactic constructions in the Russian language // Questions of linguistics, 1960, No. 5. P. 47-60
221. Shcherba L.V. About parts of speech in the Russian language // Shcherba L.V. Izbr. works on the Russian language. M., 1957. S. 63-84
222. Shcherba L.V. Current problems of linguistics // Shcherba L.V. Izbr. works on linguistics and phonetics. L., 1958, vol. 1. P. 5-24
223. Jacobson R. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb // Principles of typological analysis of languages of different structures. M., 1972. S. 95-113
224. Yakovleva E. S. Fragments of the Russian linguistic picture of the world: (models of space, time, perception). M., 1994
225. Yakubinsky L. P. About dialogical speech // Yakubinsky L. P. Language and its functioning. Selected works. M., 1986. P. 17-58
226. Yanko T. E. Once again about the unions a and but II Logical analysis of language. Inconsistency and anomalousness of the text. Rep. ed. N. D. Arutyunova. M., 1990. S. 246-258
227. Abbott, W. The conjunction but. (Manuscrit). 1972
228. Anscombre, J. C. Pour autant, pourtant (et comment): a petites causes, grands effects // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise 5, 1983. P. 37-84
229. Anscombre, J. C., Ducrot, O. Deux mais en frangais // Lingua 43 (1977). P. 2340
230. Anscombre, J. C., Ducrot, O. Lois logiques et lois argumentatives // Le Frangais moderne, 1978, v. 46, N 4. P. 347-357
231. Anscombre, J. C., Ducrot, O. Lois logiques et lois argumentatives // Le Frangais moderne, 1979, v. 47, N 1. P. 35-52
232. Anscombre, J.-C., Ducrot, O. Interrogation et argumentation // Langue frangaise 52, 1981. P. 5-22
233. Anscombre, J. C., Ducrot, O. L "argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles, 1983
234. Antoine, G. La coordination en frangais contemporain. V. I, II. Paris, 1962
235. Austin, J. L. How to do things with words. Oxford, 1962. Russian translation: J. L. Austin. The word as an action // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVII. M., 1986
236. Banys W. Predicate et connecteurs // H. Nolke. Operateurs syntaxiques, Actes du IVе Colloque International de Linguistique Slavo-romane, Copenhagen, 1988. P. 27-35
237. Badaf, G. Psycholinguistique de mais II Cahiers de GI nstitut de Linguistique de Louvain 14.3-4, 1988. P. 27-37
238. Bertinetto, P. M., Marconi, D. Analisi di “ta” (Parte prima: Semantica e pragmatica) // Lingua e stile / a. XIX, n. 2, April-Giugno 1984. P. 223-259
239. Bierwisch, M. Semantic Structure and lllocutionary Force // Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F. & Bierwisch, M. (Eds.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht / Boston / London, 1980. P. 1-37
240. Blakmore, D. Semantic Contraints on Relevance. Oxford, 1987
241. Bonnard, H. L "expression de la concession // Grand Larousse de la Langue
242. Frangaise, 1986, v. 2. P. 850-855
243. Bonnot, Chr., Fougeron, I. Accent de phrase non final et relations interenonciatives en russe moderne // Revue des etudes slaves, 1983, t. LV, N 4. P. 611-626
244. Brunot, F. La pensee et la langue. Paris, 1956
245. Brunot, F., Bruneau, Ch. Precis de grammaire historique de la langue frangaise. Paris, 1956
246. Bruxelles, S. et al. "Mais occupe-toi d"Amelie" // Ducrot O. Les mots du discours. Paris, 1980. P. 93-130
247. Cappeau, P., Bilger, M. J "ai une douleur dans la cuisse mais pas la // Recherches sur le frangais parle n° 13/1995. P. 33-43
248. Charolles, M. En realite et en fin de compte et la resolution des oppositions // Travaux du center de recherches semiologiques 1984, 47. P. 81-111
249. Culioli, A. Done II Pour une linguistique de I "enonciation. Paris, 1990. P. 169176
250. Danjou-Flaux, N. A propos de de fait, en fait, en effet et effectivement II Le Frangais moderne 1980, 48. P. 110-139
251. Danjou-Flaux, N. Reellement et en realite. Donnees lexicographiques et description semantique // Lexique 1982, 1. P. 105-151
252. Danjou-Flaux, N. Au contraire, connecteur adversatif // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise 1985, 5. P. 275-303
253. Dauzat, A. Grammaire raisonnee de la langue frangaise. Lyon, 1947
254. De Cornulier, B. Effets de sens. Paris, 1985
255. Dictionnaire Quillet de la langue frangaise. Paris, 1975
256. Dubois, J. et al. Dictionnaire de linguistique. Paris, 1973
257. Dubois, J., Dubois Charlier, F. Elements de linguistique frangaise. Paris, 1970
258. Dubois, J., Lagane, R. La nouvelle grammaire du frangais. P., 1973
259. Ducrot, O. Presupposes et sous-entendus // Langue frangaise 1969, N 4. P. 3066
260. Ducrot, O., Barbault, M. C. Ou et “v” // Ducrot, O. La preuve et le dire. Langage et logique, Paris, 1973. P. 85-102
261. Ducrot, O., Vogt, C. De “magis” a “mais”: une hypothese semantique II Revue de linguistique romane, 1979. P. 317-340
262. Ducrot, O. Dire et ne pas dire. 1e ed. 1972; 2eed. Paris, 1980
263. Ducrot, O. et al. Les mots du discours. Paris, 1980
264. Ducrot, O. Operateurs argumentatifs et visee argumentative // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise, 1983, N 5. P. 7-36
265. Ducrot, O. Le dire et le dit. Paris, 1984
266. Ferrari, A. Connessioni. Uno studio integrato della subordinazione avverbiale. Geneve, 1995
267. Ferrari, A. Un "altra ipotesi sul significato del connettivo e // Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 27, 1998. P. 275-307
268. Fl0ttum, K. Dire et redire. La reformulation introduite par "c"est-a-dire".1. Stavanger, 1995
269. Fougeron, I. “A” et “N0” deux conjonctions synonymes? // Les particules enonciatives en russe contemporain. V. 3. A.T.P. Nouvelles recherches sur le language. Collection ERA 642. Paris, 1987. P. 97-109
270. Foulet, L. Petite syntaxe de I "ancien frangais. Paris, 1970
271. Fuentes Rodriguez, C. Enlaces extraoracionales. Sevilla, 1987
272. Gamut, L.T.F. Logic, Language, and Meaning. Vol. I: Introduction to Logic. Chicago and London, 1991
273. Gazdar, G. Pragmatics. Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York, 1979
274. Gehrmann M. Adversative Konjuntionen des Polnischen im Vergleich zum Deutschen. In.: Barbel Kunzmann-Miiller. Konfrontative Untersuchungen zu Funtionswortern (Adversative Konnektive). Berlin, 1988. P. 107-189
275. Gettrup, H.; N0lke, H. (1984). Strategies concessives, une etude de six adverbes frangais // Revue romane 19. P. 3-47
276. Gex, M. Logique formelle. Lausanne, 1956
277. Giuliani, M. V. Ma e altre avversative // Rivista di grammatica generativa, 1976, I. P. 25-56
278. Groupe L-1. “Car, parce que, puisque” // Revue romane 10, 1975. P. 248-280
279. Grammaire Larousse du XXе siècle. Paris, 1936
280. Grammaire Larousse du frangais contemporain. Paris, 1964
281. Grevisse, M. Precis de grammaire frangaise. Paris, 1969
282. Grevisse, M. Le Bon Usage. Paris, 1996
283. Grammaire Larousse du frangais contemporain. Paris, 1964
284. Joulin, J. Sur les contraintes d'emploi de soit.soit alternatif // Linguisticas Investigationes XIII: 2. 1989. Amsterdam. P. 265-279
285. Karolak, S. Foncteurs, operateurs, connecteurs analyze notionnelle // H. N0lke. Operateurs syntaxiques, Actes du IVе Colloque International de Linguistique Slavo-Romane, Copenhagen, 1988. P. 11-26
286. Kronning, H. Modalite, politesse et concession: Je dois dire que. II H. N0lke. Operateurs syntaxiques, Actes du IVе Colloque International de Linguistique Slavo-Romane, Copenhagen, 1988. P. 99-112
287. Lakoff, G. Linguistics and natural logic // Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht, 1972. P. 545-665
288. Lakoff, G. Pragmatics in natural logic // Formal semantics of natural language. Los Angeles, 1975, pp. 253-286.
289. Lakoff, G., Ross, J.R. Two Kinds of And And Linguistic Inquiry. 1970. Vol. 1. N 2. P. 271-272.
290. Lakoff, G. The Role of Deduction in Grammar // Studies in Linguistic Semantics, New York, 1973. P. 63-72
291. Lakoff, R. Ifs, and "s and but"s about Conjunction // Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York, 1971. P. 114-149
292. Lang, E. The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam, Benjamin, 1984
293. Larousse de la langue frangaise (Lexis). Paris, 1979
294. Larousse du XXesiecle. Paris, 1931
295. Leard, J. M., Lagace, M. F. Concession, restriction et opposition: I "apport du quebecois a la description des connecteurs frangais // Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 15, 1985. P. 12-50
296. Le Bidois, G. et R. Syntaxe du frangais moderne. Paris, 1967. v. II
297. Letoublon, F. Pourtant, cependant, quoique, bien que: derivation des expressions de I"opposition et de la concession // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise, 1983, 5. P. 85-110
298. Levinson, S. C. Pragmatics. Cambridge, 1983
299. Licari, C.; Stame, S. Pour une analyse contrastive des connecteurs pragmatiques italiens et frangais: magari / peut-etre, anzi / au contraire. Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 18, 1989. P. 153-61
300. Littre, E. Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise. en 7 v. Paris, 1956-58
301. Logos. Grand dictionnaire de la langue frangaise. Paris, 1978
302. Losier, G. Les mecanismes enonciatifs de la refutation // Revue quebecoise de linguistique 18, 1989. P. 153-61
303. Luscher, J.-M. Signification par I"operateur semantique et inference par le connecteur pragmatique, I"exemple de mais. Sigma 12-13, 1988/89. P. 233-253
304. Lyons, J. Manuale di semantica. I sistemi semiotici. Roma-Bari, 1977
305. Maingueneau, D. Nouvelles tendances en analysis du discours. Paris, 1987
306. Manzo, A. L "" Adynaton " poetico-retorico e le sue implicazioni dottrinali. Genova, Dipartimento di archeologia e filologia classica e loro tradizione, 1988
307. Manzotti, E. Alternative // Linguistica testuale comparative. Atti del Convegno Intemazionale della SLI, Copenhagen, 5-7 febbraio 1998, a cura di G. Skytte et F. Sabatini, Copenhagen, 1998. P. 57-88
310. Minary, O. Approche linguistique de pourtant interdiscursif // Bulletin de linguistique appliquee et generate 9, 1982. P. 72-107
311. Moeschler, J. Dire et contredire. Berne, Francfort, 1982
312. Moeschler, J. Moderation du dialogue. Representation de I"inference argumentative. Paris, 1989
313. Moeschler, J., Reboul, A. Dictionnaire encyclopedique de pragmatique. Paris, 1994
314. Moeschler, J., de Spengler, N. Quand aunt: de la concession a la refutation // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise, 1981, N 2. P. 93-112
315. Moeschler, J., de Spengler, N. La concession ou la refutation interdite // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise, 1982, N 4. P. 20-27
316. Mounin, G. Dictionnaire de la linguistique. Paris, 1974
317. Murat, M., Cartier-Bresson, B. C "EST-a-DIRE ou la reprise interpretative // Langue frangaise 73, fevrier 1987. P. 5-15
318. Ogden, S. K. Opposition. A Linguistic and Psychological Analysis. London, 1932
319. Pache, R. V SAMOM DELE et NA SAMOM DELE: Etude de deux marqueurs en russe contemporain. Memoire de D.E.A., oct. 90, Paris 7
320. Paduceva, E.V. La particule ZE: semantique, syntaxe et prosodie. // Les particules enonciatives en russe contemporain. V. 3. A.T.P. Nouvelles recherches sur le language. Collection ERA 642. Paris, 1987. P. 11-44
321. Paillard D. Plungyan V. A. About one type of constructions with verb repetition in the Russian language // Russian linguistics, vol.17, 1993
322. Pasch, Renate. Negationshaltige Konnektive. Eine Studie zu den Bedeutungen von ohne dad, stattdafl, "Negation . sonderri" und weder. noch". Linguistische Studien. 1986. A/143. P. 63-171
323. Pinchon, J. Les conjonctions disjonctives // Le Frangais dans le monde N151, 1980. P. 52, 61; N 152, 1980. P. 71-72
324. Plantin, Chr. Deux “mais” // Semantikos, 1977-78, vol.II, N 2-3. P. 89-93
325. Plungian, V.A. Signification de la particule ze et jugement de probability // Les particules enonciatives en russe contemporain. V. 3. A.T.P. Nouvelles recherches sur le language. Collection ERA 642. Paris, 1987. P. 45-59
326. Rat, M. Grammaire frangaise pourtous. Paris, 1966
327. Regula, M. Grammaire frangaise explicative. Heidelberg, 1957
328. Richard, E. “Felix est beau, mais beau!”: du dit au dire // Revue de semantique et de pragmatique 1999, 5. P. 75-88
329. Rigel, M., Pellat, J.-Ch., Rioul, R. Grammaire metodique du frangais. Paris, 1997
330. Le Grand Robert de la langue frangaise. Paris, 1989
331. Rossari, C. De fait, en fait, en realite: trois marqueurs aux emplois inclusifs // Verbum 1992, 3. P. 139-161
332. Rossari, C. & Jayez J. Done et les consecutifs. Des systemes de contraintes differencielles//Lingvisticae Investigationes XX:1 (1996). Amsterdam. P. 117-143
333. Rossari, C. & Jayez J. Connecteurs de consequence et portee semantique // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise 19 (1997). P. 233-265
334. Rossari, C. La portee semantique des connecteurs pragmatiques de contraste. Le cas de au contraire et de par contre II Etudes romanes 42, 1999. Linguistica testuale comparativa. P. 343-359
335. Rossari, C. Connecteurs et relations de discours: des liens entre cognition et signification. Nancy, 2000
336. Roulet, E. et al. L'articulation du discours en frangais contemporain. Bern, Lang, 1985
337. Roulet, E. Completude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise 8 (1987). P. 111-140
338. Roulet, E. Un modele et un instrument d "analyse de la complexite dereorganization du discours // I Simposio Internacional de Analisis del Discurso (Madrid, 20-22.4.1989)
339. Roulet, E. Et si, apres tout, ce connecteur pragmatique n "etait pas un marqueur d" argument et de premisse impliquee? // Cahiers de linguistique frangaise 11 (1990). P. 329-344
340. Rudolph, E. Contrast. Berlin New York, 1996
341. Sandfeld, K. Syntaxe du frangais contemporain. Paris, 1936
342. Searle, J. R. What is a speech act? // Philosophy in America, ed. Max Black, Lomdon. 1965. P. 221-239. Russian translation: J. P. Searle. What is a speech act? //Foreign linguistics. II. M., 1999
343. Searle, J. R. A classification of illocutionary acts // Language in Society, 1976, N 5, pp. 1-23. Russian translation: J. P. Searle. Classification of illocutionary acts // Foreign linguistics. II. M., 1999
344. Sechehaye, A. Essai sur la structure logique de la phrase. Paris, 1926
345. Shapira Ch. Un mais qui introduit I "exception // Morphosyntaxe des langues romanes 1986. P. 503-512
346. Simone, R. Fondamenti di linguistica. Bari, 1990
347. Tamba, l. Ou dans les tours du type: “un bienfaiteur publique ou evergete” // Langue frangaise 73, 1987. P. 16-28
348. Tekavcic, P. Grammatica storica dell "italiano. Bologna, 1972
349. Tekavcic, P. Sintassi e semantica nella coordinazione avversativa e sostitutiva // Linguistica 18, 1978. P. 237-257
350. Togeby, K. Structure immanente de la langue frangaise. Copenhague, 1951351. van de Voorde, K. De deux a trois mais: essai de verification des approches d "Anscombre et Ducrot et de Blumenthal // Travaux de linguistique 24, 1992
351. Tresor de la langue frangaise en 16 v., Paris, 1971-94
352. Trier I. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg, 1931
353. Wagner, R. L., Pinchon, J. Grammaire du frangais classique et moderne. Paris, 1962
354. Wartburg, W. v., Zumthor, P. Precis de syntaxe du frangais contemporain. Berne, 1958
355. Wierzbicka A. Articles and linguistic relativity // International Revue of Slavic Linguistics, 1976, vol. 1, N 2/31. Contents1. Introduction.1
356. Chapter I: Definition of the concept of “connector”.910. Introductory remarks.9
357. Definition of the concept “connector”.10
358. Morphological classification of units included in the class of connectors.16
359. Chapter II: Definition of the concept of “opposition”.451. AND ABOUT. Introductory remarks.45
360. Relation of opposition in classical logic.47
361. The relation of opposition in philosophy.50112.1. The theory of opposition by G. Tarde.53
362. Relation of opposition in linguistics.56113.1. Relation of opposition in lexical semantics.56113.2. The relation of opposition and the semantics of the text.66
363. Definition of the relation of opposition.751..4.1. Conditions necessary to create a relation of opposition.77
364. Types of opposition.^82
365. Chapter III: The relation of actual opposition.881110. Introductory remarks.881111. Matching relation.89
366. Chapter V: The relation of alternative.252
367.V.O. Introductory remarks.252
368.V.1. The meaning of the conjunctions oi / or.254
369. V. 1.1. Logical point of view.254
370. V. 1.2. Linguistic point of view.255
371.V.2. Unions oi / or as indicators of choice between opposing components. Degree of "force of opposition.262
372.V.3. Other connectors introducing an alternative relation.268
373. V.3.1. Connectors that convey the relation of equivalence of components.269
374.V.3.2. Connectors conveying the disparity relationship of 273 components
375. V.3.2.1. "Actually" opposition.273
376. V.3.2.2. Interaction of an alternative with a modal element. 276
377. V.3.2.3 Interaction of opposition with evaluation.291
378. V.3.3. Logical dependence of clauses.315
379. Chapter VI. Substitution ratio.333
380.VI.1. The concept of "substitution"; general provisions.333
381.VI.1.1. "Preliminary" definition.333
382.VI.1.2. Boundaries of the substitution relationship. Replacement is “full” and partial.”334
383. VI.1.3. Substitution marked and unmarked.336
384.VI.2. Replacement connectors.339
385. VI.2.1. Adverbs introducing a substitution relation.342
386. VI.2.2. Unions introducing a substitution relation.344
387.VI.3. Semantics of replacement connectors.352
388. VI.3.1. Simple substitution.354
389.VI.3.2. Substitution by preference. Substitution type adinaton.”362
390.VI.3.3. Substitution by descriptive correspondence.371
391. VI.3.4. Substitution for inadmissibility.379
392.VI.4. Differential semantic analysis: simple substitution 383 vs negation of an accompanying circumstance.
393. Chapter VII: Correction relation.391
394. VII.1. The concept of "correction". Introductory remarks.391
395. VII.2. Methods for implementing the correction relation.394
396. VII.3. Full correction.396
397. VII.3.1. The nature of negation during correction.398
398. VII.3.2. Correlation of semantics of components during correction.404
399. VII.4. Connectors capable of transmitting a full correction relationship.407
400. VII.4.1. Restrictions imposed by conjunctions on the syntactic structure of an utterance.408
401. VII.4.2. Restrictions imposed by conjunctions on the semantic structure of an utterance.412
402. VII.4.3. Au contraire/on the contrary and correction ratio.415
403. VII.4.4. “This is not a cat, but a bandit.”417
404. VII.5. Partial correction.418
405. VII.5.1. Scalar correction.418
406. VII.5.2. Interpretive correction.4251. Conclusion.4301. Bibliography.4331. Contents.449
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
La liaison et son histoire
Liaison is one of the most interesting phonetic phenomena of the French language.
In our opinion, the most reasonable definition of liaison was given by A. A. Reformatsky: “In Russian terminology, the term liaison refers to... the French phenomenon when final “silent consonants” (zero sound) alternate in the same words with pronounced consonants before the vocal beginning of the next word in coherent speech." It was given as a note to the definition of liaison given by J. Maruso: “Liaison is ... a process consisting of eliminating a gap by pronouncing before the initial vowel a final consonant, usually omitted: trop (p)étroit” (Maruso. Dictionary of linguistic terms .)
In modern French, liaison is viewed as an archaism in pronunciation, as a residual phenomenon of earlier stages of language development. As is known from the history of the French language, the loss of final consonants in pronunciation occurred gradually. In the Latin language, to which French goes back (meaning folk Latin), each final consonant was pronounced, both in an isolated word and in a word included in a phrase. During this period, the word was much more independent. However, compared to classical Latin, this independence was less. If in classical Latin “the phrase was like an assembly of free citizens, each of whom was independent in his dominions,” in folk Latin, due to the disappearance of a number of inflections, this independence becomes less absolute.
According to historians, liaison has been strengthened in the French language since the 16th century. as a result of a change in the accent structure of the flow of speech, that is, in connection with the transition of verbal stress to phrasal stress. In a group of words united by one accent, the final consonant is silent before the consonant of the next word, but is pronounced before the vowel, that is, in an accent group, the final consonants “of each individual word begin to be pronounced as if they were inside one big word.”
“Absolute forms” of words and “fused forms” alternating with them arise. According to L.V. Shcherba, , are absolute forms, and alternating with them |gʀɑ̃t], , are fused forms. For example, the absolute form of the plural of nouns and adjectives does not have any ending, but the continuous form ends in [z].
In these examples by L.V. Shcherba we find fused forms only with the consonants [z] and [t]. It is these two consonants that are heard most often with liaison. The consonant [n] is also often pronounced - in cases of liaison with nasal vowels. Other consonants include p, r, g, but liaison is rarely done with them.
The number of liaisons used in speech does not, however, remain constant. At the end of the last century and especially at the beginning of our century, there was a tendency to reduce the use of liaison, which in many cases leads to the emergence of a gap at the junction of words.
Numerous cases of loss of liaison are noted by all researchers of French pronunciation. For example, Langlar notes that in the pronunciation of the French language, which has generally stabilized, only liaison continues its evolution. Like other authors, Langlar notes a decrease in cases of liaison, primarily in colloquial speech (dans la conversation familière), and under its influence in other types of speech (reading, public speaking). According to Langlar, the loss of liaison is so rapid that the issue of it should be reviewed at least every ten years. But he does not conclude that liaison completely disappears in French. Liaison is also preserved in the groups “article noun”, “numeral + noun”, “adjective + noun” and in some other very few cases. In general, other French phoneticians adhere to the same opinion. For example, M. Grammon notes that in colloquial speech the younger generation tends to use only those liaisons that perform grammatical functions, in particular, serve as a means of distinguishing the singular and plural.
The progressive loss of liaison can be traced through transcriptions of texts that are separated by a relatively short (for the history of a language) period of time. For example, a comparison of the texts cited in the works of E. Koschwitz and T. Rosse shows that at the beginning of the century those liaisons that were considered mandatory at the end of the last century became optional and even prohibited (in all types of pronunciation except recitation).
Even more revealing is the analysis of the liaisons that are recommended in; as mandatory in 1890 in the book by M. A. Lesen. Langlar analyzes 19 groups of words, such as: elle sort avec plaisir; il rompt avec ses amis; on le plaint aussi; je cours ensuite le prévenir, etc., marked by Lecaine with the heading “On lie toujours”, and comes to the conclusion that among these 19 cases there is not a single one that would be considered obligatory in modern language. In later works on liaison one can also find lists of obligatory liaisons; It is characteristic, however, that after about ten years (as Langlyar wrote about this), some cases of mandatory liaisons become optional. For example, in the list of obligatory liaisons given by P. Delattre in 1947, liaison in c’est impossible is listed. But already in his 1956 article, liaison in this group of words is designated as “liaison facultative très fréquente.” Currently, from the list of obligatory liaisons compiled by P. Delattre in 1947, it is possible to exclude dos à dos, as well as de moins en moins (a detailed study of liaisons will apparently make it possible to exclude a number of other liaisons from this list).
When assessing the probability of liaison, one of the criteria is the degree of unity of words in a phrase, which in turn is assessed by the possibility of a pause between them. The greatest unity of phrase elements is observed within an accent group (rhythmic group), the least - between two accent groups. But this criterion alone is insufficient and cannot reflect all cases of use and non-use of liaisons. In some cases, other factors come into force, for example, historical ones, an example of which is the prohibition of liaison with nasal vowels in such combinations as un / à un, chacun / appelle, bon / à voir or the presence of h aspirate (h aspiré): les/haillons, les/haricots.
The greatest difficulties are presented by optional liaisons. When analyzing them, phoneticians recommend taking into account a number of factors, such as: stylistic, syntactic, prosodic, phonetic and historical. All factors work together.
Taking into account the stylistic factor is necessary due to the fact that there is a direct relationship between the style of speech and the frequency of liaisons: in colloquial speech the minimum number of liaisons is used, in the recitation of classical poetry the maximum is used. Between these two poles (colloquial speech - classical poetry) there is a gradual increase in the number of used liaisons.
The importance of the syntactic factor is obvious: weakening syntactic connections between words leads to a lower probability of liaison.
The role of the prosodic factor is as follows: a) there is a certain relationship between intonation, which characterizes various communicative types of phrases, and the frequency of liaisons; b) when using emphatic stress (accent d’insistance), liaison is either eliminated (and the stress falls on the initial vowel of the word being emphasized) or preserved (and the stress falls on the consonant pronounced with liaison); c) it is traditionally believed that there is a correlation between the monosyllabic/polysyllabic nature of a word (in particular, an adverb) and the likelihood of liaison. Thus, liaison is more likely in trop aimable than in tellement aimable. However, the role of monosyllabic/polysyllabic adverbs in assessing the probability of liaison is not confirmed by recent studies. For example, Agren did not find any correlation between the length of adverbs and the frequency of their association with the following word; He notes that short words (and adverbs in particular) are more common in speech than long words, as evidenced by a linguistic questionnaire carried out by a group of French researchers during the development of the "francais fondamental". The questionnaire showed a high frequency of the use of short words in French colloquial speech. According to J. Arpena, it is precisely because of the greater frequency of short adverbs in speech that the conclusion is drawn about their more frequent occurrence in liaison.
The phonetic factor is no less important. The following phonetic indicators should be highlighted: a) the presence in the first of the potentially associated words of one or two final consonants. Thus, there is a greater probability of liaison in des noms amusants (one consonant) than in des cont(e)s amusants (two consonants); b) the nature of the gaping (hiatus) that occurs when liaison is not used: a lower probability of liaison when gaping occurs in vowels of different timbres - nous avons été, a greater probability of liaison when gaping vowels of the same timbre occurs - vous avez été; c) a kind of “resistance” of liaison when associated with the infinitive of a verb compared to the present participle, for example, en donnant un rendez-vous and donner / un rendez-vous; in this case, the greater frequency of liaison with the consonant (t) than with [r] also plays a certain role.
The historical factor also plays a role. For example, some cases of prohibition of liaison are explained by historical reasons: les / haillons, bon / à voir. Historical reasons also explain the actual prohibition of liaison with singular nouns: un dos / étroit (liaison is recommended only in the recitation of classical poetry); but in the plural, liaisons of this type are optional: des dos étroits - in this case, the liaison performs a grammatical function by indicating the plural.
The issue of gaping and the increase in its frequency due to the loss of liaison should be considered in more detail.
In classic works on French phonetics, the question of liaison is often associated with gape. It is noted that one of the reasons for maintaining the liaison is the fact that the liaison prevents the occurrence of gaping, which is considered unpleasant to the ears of the French; indicates a kind of “fear of gaping.” In modern works, the “fear of gaping” belongs to the realm of myths. The number of gapes in speech increases significantly due to the process of reducing the use of liaisons. The emergence of gaping in connection with the non-use of liaisons can be traced through the analysis of the story “Un Persan à Paris” (from the Montesquieu collection “Lettres persanes”), given by M. Grammont in the appendix to the chapter “Les liaisons et l’hiatus”.
In the text of the story, containing 30 lines, Grammont noted 34 gaps at the junction of words, 21 of which are a consequence of the elimination of optional liaisons. These include, for example: verb in imparfait -f article, preposition or adverb (faisai(t) un arc-en-ciel; se mettalen(t) aux fenêtres; apprenal(t) à la compagnie; je voyai(s) aussitôt ); adverb -f article, past participle or other adverb (pa(s) un homme; jamal(s) imaginé; aussitôt) autour de moi) ; adjective in singular number -f another adjective (curieu(x) et rаre); plural noun number -f adjective (ornemen(t) étranger); past participle -f preposition (mi(s) en occasion); verb + past participle (Je me vi(s) apprécié); infinitive of the verb of the first group + article or adverb (endosse(r) un; se forme(r) autour de moi).
It is natural to ask what happens when liaison, that consonantal form of linking words specific to the French language, is lost, and how can the phonetic results of this process be described? The results may be different depending on the outcome of the word - consonantal or vocalic. We are only interested in the latter. There are two possible cases here. The first case is the absence of any phonetic connection. This makes it possible for each of the words to become phonetically more independent in the flow of speech, since, having lost a connecting consonant, the first word can be separated from the subsequent one by a short pause. The second case is the coherent pronunciation of words, which is carried out by continuous vibration of the vocal cords at the moment of transition from the final vowel of the first word to the initial vowel of the second word. At the same time, at the word boundary there is only a slight modulation of the voice and a slight decrease in intensity. It is this type of linking of words that Grammon notes when analyzing the text of “Un Persan à Paris”. However, in some cases it is quite possible to avoid linking and separate the words with a short pause, for example: Je ne me croyais pas un homme si curieux // et si rare. With liaison, a pause is usually not possible.
The process of losing liaison is assessed in different ways.
Thus, M. Grammon believes that when consonantal linking is replaced by vocal linking, the transition from one vowel to another is accompanied by pleasant to the ear modulations of the timbre and height of these vowels. This, in his opinion, leads to the elimination of liaison.
An aesthetic assessment of a linguistic fact is, of course, insufficient. Moreover, it is known that the use of liaison is explained precisely by the fact that “pronunciation with a consonant is more harmonious and prevents the occurrence of gaping.”
Apparently, it is necessary to take into account not only the phonetic consequence of reducing the number of used liaisons (replacing one form of linking words with another), but also the phonological significance of this process, that is, the role played by the process of reducing the use of liaisons when the language performs its communicative function. From this point of view, we find the explanation given by Langlyar more convincing. He believes that the loss of liaison is associated with the desire to preserve a single, most common form of the word. Kleda and a number of other researchers of the French language, for example, M. Cohen, share the same opinion. In their conclusions, they are based on one of the trends in the development of the French language - a gradual reduction in the number of options for pronouncing a word depending on various conditions of the flow of speech. Traces of this variety of pronunciation forms have been preserved in the modern language in the pronunciation of some numerals.
Most important, however, we consider the fact that reducing the use of liaison leads to a clearer identification of the boundaries between words. This boundary is especially clearly marked when a gap occurs at the junction of words, where the very presence of a vowel + vowel combination can be considered from a phonological point of view as one of the phenomena related to word boundary indicators.
Considering the role of gaping at the junction of words, it is necessary to dwell on the question of gaping within words.
From the history of the language it is known that already during the formation of the French language, “the gaps that exist in classical Latin or occur as a result of the disappearance of a consonant are reduced in various ways. So, prehendere - prendere, mortuus - mortus or filiolus- fiilyolus, etc. True, the Old French gaping period also reappears, mainly in connection with the disappearance of some consonants in the intervocalic position. However, further pronunciation gradually eliminates unstressed vowels in gaping. In the 16th century this process is finally completed. The gap remained in the verbs haïr, trahir, envahir, where the influence of other verbs ending in -ir played a role, as well as in the word naïf (according to other adjectives ending in -i, f) and in the words pays, paysan, trahison. Later the gaping was restored in some words. For example, Malherbe restored it in Noël, poète, where in the 16th century. there was no gaping.
In order to find out how large the number of such words is in the modern language, it is enough to analyze any French dictionary, and also consider the frequency of use of words with a gap based on the text material. A similar analysis is necessary to determine the frequency of gaping at word boundaries. Such an analysis will allow us to draw a conclusion about the role of each type of gaping in modern French.
Linking words in French
Prepositions and linking words are necessary to link simple sentences into complex ones and make speech more interesting and expressive. Linking words are usually simple, easy to remember, and give you the feeling of easy, fluent conversation. Try using them in your speech and you will notice that you can speak French very easily.
Prepositions:
Avant - before, before
Maintenant - now
Après - after
Entre - between
Parmi - between, among (persons or objects):
de - has basic meanings:
Genitive
le livre de Honoré de Balzac - book by Honoré de Balzac
la lumière de la lune - moonlight
l’art de vivre - the art of living
From destination
vous venez de Kiev? - are you coming from Kyiv?
Mode of action: how, in what way?
je joue de la guitare - I play the guitar
à - has basic meanings:
Dative
je donne ce livre à mon ami - I give this book to my friend
Direction (anywhere)
il va à l’école - he goes to school
Preposition of time
à midi – at noon
Used before an indirect object
il pense à ses parents - he thinks about his parents
dans - in (inside), through and other meanings:
dans ce théâtre il y a cinq cents places - this theater has five hundred seats
ma soeur travaille dans un laboratoire - my sister works in the laboratory
en - in, by, on (method and manner of action) and other meanings:
je lis en français - I read French
vivre en France - live in France
pour - for, for, in order to:
j"ache`te se livre pour vous - I buy this book for you
jе vais a` Moscow pour 2 moi - I’m going to Moscow for 2 months
merci pour votre invitation - thank you for the invitation
il est sorti pour acheter un journal - he went out to buy a newspaper
sur - on (surface) and others:
la clé est sur la table - the key is on the table
j'ai collé un timbre sur l'enveloppe - I put a stamp on the envelope
je voudrais une chambre sur mer - I would like a room with a sea view
avec - meaning "with something or someone"
viens avec moi! - come with me!
écrire avec un stylo - write with a pen
écouter avec attention - listen carefully
chez - at, to (used before nouns denoting persons):
il va chez son ami - he goes to his friend
il resta chez nous - he stayed with us
contre - to (close); against:
mettez la table contre le mur - place the table against the wall
protester contre la lui - protest against the law
On the topic: methodological developments, presentations and notes
Research work "Eponyms in French"
This paper examines proper names that have become common nouns. In linguistics, such words are called eponyms. Eponymous words occupy a significant layer of French vocabulary....
A hundred years ago, not speaking French was considered bad form; French was taught in any educational institution around the world. In the twentieth century...
This presentation can be used in French lessons for an initial introduction to the topic "Degrees of comparison of adjectives", as well as as a simulator for consolidating knowledge on...
Read also...
- Speech material for automating the sound P in sound combinations -DR-, -TR- in syllables, words, sentences and verses
- The following word games Exercise the fourth extra goal
- Motivational theories. Motive and motivation. Theories of motivation Theories of motivation in various psychological directions
- Purpose of the Phillips School Anxiety Test
