SYNCRETISM OF THE BELARUSIAN SYNTAX: ON THE EXAMPLE OF POSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH TO BE AND TO HAVE PREDICATES

UDC 811.161.3’367

  • Vazhnik Syarhei Alyaksandravich − PhD (Philology), Associate Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Philology of Belarusian State University, Professor, the Department of Computational Linguistics and Linguodidactics. Belarusian State University (4, Nezavisimosti Ave., 220030, Minsk Republic of Belarus). E-mail: waznik@yandex.ru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52065/2520-6729-2022-255-1-102-110

Key words: possessive relationships, esse-languages (to be-languages) vs. habere-languages (to have-languages), possessive model, rejecting – non-rejecting belonging.

For citation:Vazhnik S. A. Syncretism of the Belarusian syntax: on the example of posessive constructions with to be and to have predicates. Proceedings of BSTU, issue 4, Print- and Mediatechnologies, 2022, no. 1 (255), pp. 102–110 (In Belarusian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52065/2520-6729-2022-255-1-102-110.

Abstract

The article describes the syncretic nature of the Belarusian syntax. The Belarusian be- and haveconstructions are completely equal when expressing “rejected belonging”, but there is no complete synonymy between the marked constructions. There are certain selective restrictions on the compatibility of the verb predicate ɦɟɰɶ with abstract and possesive names. A special study of the selective category “possessiveness” was conducted by A. Mikhnevich in study “Problems of semantic and syntactic research of the Belarusian language” (1976). The compatibility of the Belarusian verbs ɛɵɰɶ and ɦɟɰɶ with the names in the posessum position should also be described by means of selective categories [+Concr] // [+Abstr], [+Anim] // [-Anim], [+Pers] // [-Pers].

All languages of the world are divided into two groups – esse-languages (to be-languages) vs. habere-languages (to have-languages) – depending on the syntactic construction by which they express the relationship of affiliation. The Belarusian language is both an esse-language and a habere-language at the same time. This is the specificity of the Belarusian literary language on the All-Slavic background.

Download

References

  1. Tlumachal’ny slounik belaruskay movy [Explanatory dictionary of the Belarusian language]. Minsk, BelSE Publ., 1977, vol. 1, pp. 431–432 (In Belarusian).
  2. Tlumachal’ny slounik belaruskay litaraturnay movy [Explanatory dictionary of the Belarusian literary language]. Minsk, Belaruskaya entsyklapedyya Publ., 1996. P. 99; p. 344 (In Belarusian).
  3. Mikhnievich A. Ja. Synonymy of appeals u mjanie jos’c’ – ja maju in the Belarusian language. Belaruskaya mova i litaratura u VNU: tezisy respublikanskay navukova-metadychnay kanferentsyi [Belarusian language and literature in Universities: theses of the Republican Scientific and Methodological Conference]. Brest, BRDU Publ., 1971. 226 p. (In Belarusian).
  4. Kiklievich A. K. On index expressions with the semantics of possessiveness (based on the material of the Russian and German languages). Slavyano-germanskiye yazykovyye paralleli [Slavic-Germanic linguistic parallels], 1996. 221 p. (In Russian).
  5. Kiklewicz A. Are there possessive pronouns in Polish? Prace Filologiczne. 1997, vol. XLII, pp. 121–130 (In Polish).
  6. Vyachorka V. Queen Bono, her husband and Pitogorov’s theorem. Belarusian language – for private ownership of everything. Pa-belarusku z’ Vintsukom Vyachorkam [Vjachorka V. In Belarusian with Vintsuk Vyachorka]. RS, 2016, pp. 190–202 (In Belarusian).
  7. Vyachorka V. “Ja maju” ci “u mjanje jos’c’ ”? About Belarusian individualism and collectivization in the language. Ne s’myashytse maye prynazouniki [Vjachorka V. Don’t make my prepositions laugh]. RS, 2017, pp. 221–229 (In Belarusian).
  8. Plungian V. A. Comparing sentences. Pochemu yazyki takiye raznyye. Populyarnaya lingvistika [Why languages are so different. Popular linguistics], 2020. 274 p. (In Russian).
  9. Zhurinskaya M. A. Possessiveness. Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slavar’ [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya Publ., 1990, pp. 388–389 (In Russian).
  10. Karskiy Je. F. Belarusy [Belarusians]. Ɇoscow, Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR Publ., 1956, vol. 3, pp. 413–414 (In Belarusian).
  11. Norman B. Ju. About possessive pronouns in Slavic languages. Slavia Orientalis. 1999, vol. XLVIII, 4. P. 605 (In Russian).
  12. Mikalai Kuz’mich, jeweler, author of the restored cross of Euphrosyn’nya of Polotsk. LIM [Literature and art], 2020, 4 December. P. 16. (In Belarusian).
  13. Mikhnievich A. Ja. Russko-belaruskiy razgovornik [Russian-Belarusian phrasebook]. Minsk, Vysheysaya shkola Publ., 1991. 211 p. (In Russian and Belarusian).
  14. Vazhnik S. A. Kantrastyuny sintaksis pol’skay i belaruskay mou: semantyka i dystrybutsyya dzeyaslounaga predykata [Contrastive syntax of the Polish and Belarusian languages: semantics and distribution of the verb predicate]. Minsk, Prava i ekanomika Publ., 2008. 376 p. (In Belarusian).
  15. Benveniste E. The verbs “to be” and “to have” and their functions in language. Obshchaya lingvistika [General Linguistics], 1974. P. 212 (In Russian).
  16. Glinnik I. V. Verbs to have and to be in the system of means of expression of possessiveness in the Russian and Polish languages. Karpovskiye nauchnyye chteniya: sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Karpov scientific readings: a collection of scientific articles], 2011, issue 5, vol. 2. 188 p. (In Belarusian).
  17. Mihnievich A. Ja. Selection category alienability – inalienability. Prablemy semantykasintaksichnaga dasledavannya belaruskay movy [Problemnavy of semantic and syntactic research of the Belarusian language], 1976. 263 p. (In Belarusian).
  18. Vazhnik S. A. The category of possessiveness in a contrasting aspect (Polish-Belarusian parallels). Palanistyka [Polonistics], 1999, pp. 105–121 (In Belarusian).
  19. Suprun A. Ja. Belarusian literary Language: between Slavia Orthodoxa and Slavia Latina. Mova – Litaratura – Kul’tura [Language – Literature – Culture], 1999, vol. 1, pp. 21–24 (In Belarusian).
11.01.2022