Глаголы широкой семантики в русском и английском языках

Another important component of the cognitive scenario inherited prefixes derived verb бить, is the nature of the direct object-Patient, as shall include the following:

1) inanimate objects (бить посуду, бить лед, выбить ковер, разбить стакан, сбить яблоко с дерева, сбить черенок лопаты, разбить сапоги), physical impacts on the opportunities that are commensurate with the person, that is usually the object is relatively small in size , fragile and capable as a result of a long negative impact on it rendered useless, broken, damaged, separate from anything, etc. (with the exception of some of the objects the verb  сбить  'to make fall down, shoot', for example, сбить самолет, сбить ракету);

2) animate beings (in conjunction with the verb to beat physical effect brings them suffering or death бить слуг, бить лошадь, острогом бить щук, бить кур, in combination with prefixes derived verb strike action leads to a change in the object or change its location разбить туристов на группы, сбить овец в стадо)

The above derivative verb prefixes beat characterized distinct relationships between values. For example, most of the values ​​represents the verb knock cognitive script move the object by a blow, meaning of the verb to beat - the scenario of the physical impact on the object, inflicting damage up to failure, the verb break - a scenario the integrity of the object, etc. The script derived verbs creates mutual action producing verb semantics and semantics formant (prefix).

Thus, the values ​​verb of general semanticshit is updated individual components of cognitive scenario, the variation are not only the basic components for a given situation, the physical effects of the verb (subject, object), but also the components of the situation related basic situation. In prefixed derivative verb beat inherited such features scenario as performance, repeatability, multiple, nature of the object, but the value of these verbs are transformed, firstly, because the semantics of the prefix which introduces a whole new semantic components, and second, under the influence of contextual partners clarifying the nature of the subject, object, tools and related the circumstances.

Derivatives verb of general semantics бить (выбить, отбить, разбить, сбить)  have limited reference, which does not allow to consider these derivatives verb of general semanticsymi verbs.

• Брать. Verb has 11 independent values ​​and 5 shades of meaning. Basically meaning of the verb is in communion object. Derived values ​​of the verb come in different: initiation object, an object that goal, the creation of an object as a result of physical labor, the definition of the functional state of the object, that is allocated to different classes: action verbs (object creation as a result of physical labor, determine the goal), verbs of state (functional state of the object) and verb relationship (initiation of the object receiving the object). Verb брать different values ​​can enter into stable verbal-nominal speed (for example, брать шефство, брать ответственность на себя, брать аккорды). Derivational jack to take the top 423 includes derivatives of these 113 verbs.

The study of semantic verb paradigms proves the existence of cognitive script, which is based on the idea of ​​initiation of the object. Cognitive event-scenario includes two propositions related to logical relations objectives: 1) the subject takes a physical object (object, person, people) to 2) to hold an object and use it for your own.

In derived verb meaning updated components of this cognitive scenario. In the basic sense to take ('seize, grasp the hand, hands, or how-l. Instrument, an instrument in the hands and the taking in hand') is allocated the following composition of the participants: the subject - a person, an object - a small (so that one is able to keep in hand) a physical object, the tool - a hand or instrument in the hands, the purpose - to keep. In most of the verb derived values ​​transformed component with the value objectives: if the original goal is to keep the value of the object, the object derivatives updated communion and getting it at their disposal. To 'take a what-l. purpose, a commitment to public-l. conditions' is the reduction of signs of physical ownership of the facility and updating feature of initiation of the object its inclusion in the other objects. To 'get into their ownership, use and disposal' occurs profiling proposition purpose and meaning of the verb as a whole is undergoing a significant change: the physical plan of the initiation of the object becomes a sign of peripheral and component objectives (take an object to hold and dispose of them) - the core lexical meaning. Value generates complex derivatives based on the specialization of the mode of action and the actants' purchase for the money to buy ',' to make the subject of his examination, study, image, to assess how-l. way ',' mine, to get, to seek, to draw ',' get in production or laboratory research purposes. "

Another block of values ​​combined common mode of action. The subject should make an effort to get the object, causing it to do the trick, and the transfer of the object acquires social meaning. So there are the following meanings of the verb 'to acquire, capture, win, win (during the war, the political struggle, sports, hunting, etc.)'; 'achieve its goal by using smth., Possess all the qualities necessary to achieve smth. '; overcome, prevail. " The idea of ​​overcoming the obstacles encountered in the meaning of the verb, metaphorically projected in the particular area, and is able to take the verb is a functional object property - 'act (of a tool, weapon)': Saw this steel takes. The value was the result of a metaphorical transfer, based on the imaginative scheme "overcoming obstacles" (брать высоту, брать приз и брать сталь, брать щетину), and barter diathesis.

Difficult to explain the emergence of verb meaning 'to take away, to require (a certain amount of time)': Training takes a lot of time. In the semantic structure of the sentence is the subject position predicate actant indicating any action subject (eg, training) and is included with a proposition (the person is prepared, and these actions take a lot of time, energy, effort). It can be assumed that the basis of the values ​​is a metaphor likening efforts expended person physical action to transfer the object.

Examination of the structure of each of the propositional meaning of the verb "брать " suggests the presence of a single cognitive script transfer and a lifetime of the object. As can be seen from the analysis of propositional structures of all lexical-semantic variant verb "take", they contain common components of "appropriation of the object", "bringing it into the subject - speaking", "approaching object to the subject." These symptoms are, first, is the basis of cognitive script and, secondly, as a consequence, all combined into a single lexical-semantic variant semantic structure. The same processes are characteristic of the analyzed above the verb "to beat": components "repeatability and repeated" and "active action on the object, leading to adverse effects" are all nuclear lexical-semantic variant valued verb and ensure the unity of the semantic structure.

This not agree with those scholars who deny the existence of a word wide prototype semantics. Of course, with the development of the verb loses value observed physical signs (passing an object by hand, the acquisition of a specific object, which a person is able to hold, and so on) and update features more abstract (possession of the disposition, the goal, the application of physical or mental effort to achieve the goal, etc.). That part of the information that is not recorded in the original meaning, but is used in a semantic derivation, GI Kustova calls implication: "The basis of semantic word is not only original, basic meaning, but also the corresponding prototypical situation. It is the source of the cognitive scheme, which, as we move away from the physical substance, progressively "emerges" in the more general and abstract form in the derived value, combining highly heterogeneous situation with heterogeneous objects into a group and making their implementations of a "big idea" . But she, prototypical situation is a source of many implications that the original value is not marked (as to the interpretation of this value does not need them), but many of which are based no metaphoric especially metaphorical"⁶. For example, analyzing the derivation verb break, she said the implication of the damage that is not derived from the original values ​​('pulling and separating it from the root, start to have (in hand)'), but also explains the value derived verb (to break the skin on the finger / thread / voice / Lesson / negotiations).

 

 

 

Conclusion

Thus, for each of the verbs of general semantics are the following characteristics:

• availability of a well-developed polysemy (multiple meanings);

• Non-derivative;

• high derivational activity;

• belonging to the main lexical foundation of language;

• Wide denotative relatedness (data verbs can label specific physical activities, functional status, and various types of social activity: resistance, goal, win, etc.);

• the availability of cognitive scenario.

Investigated verbs of general semantics in their original values ​​represent specific observable physical activities falls under the actional verbs and are isosemical methods represent different traffic situations, movement, physical action. In cognitive scenarios such verbs are prototypical components that determine the semantic derivation of verbs and appearance as no metaphorical and metaphorical (beat - many times to work on the object, revealing its power to change, deformation of the object, to take - to assign an object to the ownership and use).

Analysis of all the verbs of general semantics in Russian language in terms of cognitive scripts and how semantic derivation will identify the essential features of these verbs, and to determine the mechanisms of development of values. This study demonstrates the possibility of a prototypic approach as a way to describe the cognitive linguistic material. Verbs of general semantics have a special place in the system of language as represent basic actions (movement, position in space, space, physical impacts on the object, etc.), as the basic identity in the structure of the lexical-semantic groups and organize verbal vocabulary of the Russian language. 
Bibliography

1. Adger, D. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Alexander, W. D., Introduction to Hawaiian Grammar, Dover Publ., 2004
3. Allerton, D. 2006. Verbs and their satellites. In The handbook of linguistics, ed. by B. Aarts and A. McMahaon, 126-149. Malden, M.: Blackwell Publishing.
4. Bybee, Joan; Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. The Evolution of Grammar, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994, pp.192-199
5. Charles N., and Sandra A. Thomson, Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, 1989.
6. Haiden, M. 2006. Verb particle constructions. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, The Blackwell companion to syntax, volume V. 344-375. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
7. Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Ian Jacobs. English Modal Verbs. August 1995
9. Juraffsky, D. and J. Martin. 2000. Speech and language processing. Dorling Kindersley, India: Pearson Education.
10. Knowles, M. and R Moon. 2006. Introducing metaphor. London: Routledge, 2006.
11. Long, T. (ed.). 1979. Longman dictionary of English idioms. Longman Group Limited.
12. Macmillan phrasal verbs plus dictionary. 2005 Oxford: Macmillan Education 2005.
13. McArthur, T. 1992. The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford University Press.
14. McCarthy M. and F. O'dell. 2007. English phrasal verbs in use. Cambridge University Press.
15. Osborne, T. and T. Groß 2012a. Constructions are catenae: Construction Grammar meets Dependency Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1, 163-214.
16. Oxford phrasal verbs dictionary. 2001.
17. Palmer, F.R., Mood and Modality, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 33
18. Sakoda, Kent, and Jeff Siegel, Pidgin Grammar, Bess Press, 2003.
19. Tallerman, M. 1998. Understanding syntax. London: Arnold.
20. Беляева Е. П. Прототипическая база семантики английских глаголов : дис. … канд. филол. наук. СПб., 2001.
21. Колшанский Г. В. Контекстная семантика. М., 1980.
22. Кустова Г. И. Типы производных значений и механизмы языкового расширения. М., 2004.
23. Песина С. А. Инвариант многозначного слова в свете прототипической семантики // Вестн. Омск. гос. ун-та. 2005. № 2. С. 57—63.
24. Чудинова Е. А. Широко развитая многозначность в лексике современного русского языка : (лингвостатистическое исследование по данным лексикографии) : автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. Пермь, 1998.
25. http://en.wikipedia.org

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org

² Belyaev, 2001, 88

³ Pesin, 2005, 61-62

⁴ ​Chudinov, 1998

⁵ Kolshansky, 1980, 130

⁶ Kustova, 2004, 197