LINGUISTIC STUDIES. Volume 30 Функциональный анализ синтаксических структур : сб. науч. тр. – Иркутск : Изд-во Иркут. ун-та, 1982. – С. 3-21. Черемисина, Колосова 1987: Черемисина, М.И., Колосова, Т.А. Очерки по теории сложного предложения [Текст] / М. И. Черемисина, Т. А. Колосова. – Новосибирск : Наука, 1987. – 197 с. Черкасова 1967: Черкасова, Е.Т. Переход полнозначных слов в предлоги [Текст] / Е. Т. Черкасова. – М. : Наука, 1967. – 280 с. Шереметьева 2008: Шереметьева, Е.С. Отыменные релятивы современного русского языка. Семантико-синтаксические этюды: монография [Текст] / Е. С. Шереметьева. – Владивосток : Изд-во Дальневост. ун-та, 2008. – 235 с. Шиганова 2003: Шиганова, Г. А. Релятивные фразеологизмы русского языка [Текст] / Г. А. Шиганова. – Челябинск: Изд-во Челяб. гос. пед. ун-та, 2003. – 306 с. Шмелева 2010: Шмелева, Т.В. Техника сложного предложения [Текст] / Т. В. Шмелева // Лингвистические идеи В. А. Белошапковой и их воплощение в современной русистике: коллективная монография / сост., отв. ред. Л. М. Байдуж. – Тюмень : Мандр и Ка, 2010. – С. 116-133. Milewska 2003: Milewska, В. Słownik polskich przyimków wtórnych [Text] / В. Milewska. – Gdańsk, 2003. – 192 s. У статті продемонстрована методика виявлення інвентарю номіналізаторів (комплексів типу ―прийменник + той, хто‖), здатних виступити в ролі прийменниковосполучникових формантів предикативних синтаксем у поліпропозиційних реченнях білоруської мови. Доведена вирахуваність зазначених одиниць і названі причини їхньої обмеженої контекстної презентованості в Інтернет-ресурсах. Ключові слова: іменна прийменниково-відмінкова синтаксема, прийменник, сполучник, номіналізатор, прийменниково-сполучниковий формант, предикативна синтаксема. Available 20 December 2014. Oksana Putilina УДК 81371+81366.5=811.112.2 DEEP CATEGORIES OF MODERN ENGLISH: PROSPECTS OF APPLICATION The article is devoted to the problem of the case and role grammar in the light of a general linguistic paradigm, aimed at establishing the sources of the case grammar and tracing the reasons, preconditions, and specific nature of its development and organizing as an independent linguistic tendency. In this paper the category of case / role is determined as a basic category in the conception of case / role grammar. The process of developing conceptual principles of the theory of deep cases as concepts within the main directions of world linguistics from universal grammar to theories of functionalists, so-called traditional linguistics and partly generativistics are regarded. It is noted that the investigation of deep categories has made it possible to use the results of relevant research in a plane of other scientific-theoretical and practical spheres of human activity, particularly in politics. Keywords: case grammar, communicative strategy, communicative tactic, native speaker, English-language politicum, role grammar, technology of public opinion, universalism, universalia, universal grammar. In terms of global world integration, the effect of which is to enhance intercultural relations, development of languages, including English, and hence linguistics that deals with research and the introduction into circulation of the results of development, is a rapid process that is not always predictable, so it's natural that modern scholars do not always have time to fix even the appearance © Putilina O., 2015

22

SECTION І. Theory of Language of a completely new offshoot of seems to be a certain direction, which claims to primacy in modern linguistic, and more – scientific, circulation. Extrapolarity and polyvector character of modern scientific linguistic methods that balance at the intersection of several scientific planes, not always self-linguistic, provides a unique opportunity to assess and to overestimate the many phenomena and processes not only in the functioning of language itself, but in all areas of human activity, that in itself is diverse and syncretic. The representative of contemporary socium, particularly Englishlanguage one, is at the same time a native speaker and not just a source of information, but also an object of active, massed, audience-focused, sometimes even aggressive-communicative impact of several powerful sources of such influence, which determine the development of modern society, modern media, advertising (in all its manifestations) and, of course, politicum. Anyone who speaks in English (regardless of whether he is a native speaker or he use English as a second (foreign) language), getting into the English-language information field, is forced to perform an active communicant in this language environment that caused those trends and processes that are raging in it, primarily due to globalization integrable nature of English as a language of active international communication, which creates favorable environmental for strengthening accumulative factor, and thus increases the power of informational stimulus on a communicant. Functioning in that form is one of the differential features of Modern English in the status of one of the languages of international communication with signs of cosmopolitan language that absorbed elements of other languages, to which it is in contact, a language of powerful states on the global stage. It is clear this affects the individual speech of English native speaker and determines its way of perceiving reality in general, and vision / assessment of a situation in particular. The complexity of the situation in which lives a modern English-language communicant, is that he always consciously or unconsciously being influenced by information incentives that are designed to simulate the behavioral pattern and the model of vision of reality surrounding it, and is a consequence of systematic interaction of manipulative strategies and tactics of general informative, advertising or political nature. Processes that are manifested at the lexical level, triggered by changes at the other levels of language (including deep level), and manifest themselves through a combination / use of various linguistic units in the information broadcasting, which we perceive every day (political speeches, official statements, information messages, and advertisements), originating at speech-intellectual level, appealing to some deep meaning, by which we construct our speech and, in fact, reflects the reality around us. These processes are intended to form a certain public opinion about the facts of reality, sometimes in conflict with already established vision, eventually diluting the notion that emerged in a representative of socium about a situation or fact, and creating a new vision by competent combination of appropriate communication strategies and tactics that can be observed in particular in the political sphere. Those deep meanings / deep roles defining speech-intellectual activity of communicant reflect its perception and evaluation of the facts and extralinguistic reality to which the date technologies of public opinion appeal, which can influence the development of Modern English in all aspects of its functioning like extralinguistic factor (health, economics, politics, science and technology, sports, the so-called "high" art, music, cinema, literature, daily life, news area, including showbiz, etc.) involving the entire spectrum of language means, is, in fact, the object of case (and wider – role) grammar studies. Since the main source of information is direct speech (verbal / written), a special attention recently pays the linguistic means, especially those which are able to some extent influence the opinion of the potential audience, especially deep categories that are currently should be considered as one of the most effective means of shaping public ideas used in communicative strategies and tactics in modern English-language political community, in linguistics, political science, psychology, etc. Actually, this is due to the relevance of the research in the field of case and role grammars with expressive focus in plane of their practical application in the political sphere. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the main provisions of case and role grammars as domineering means of isolation and qualification of deep cases / roles and determination of the 23

LINGUISTIC STUDIES. Volume 30 principles of their operation with the projection on modeling a certain perception of reality by a native speaker. The purpose of the paper makes it necessary to solve the following tasks: 1) determination of the domineering principles of case grammar; 2) classification of linguotheoretical and philosophical basis of case grammar; 3) outline the main vectors practical application of results of these studies in the political sphere. In the world there are a number of national linguistic traditions, each of which is marked by specificity of becoming, formation of a certain range of conceptual issues. American linguistic tradition occupies a peculiar place and it is characterized by a maximum variety and significant influence on science in other countries. In recent years, there is some internationalization of linguistics, convergence of American and European linguistics. This applies, in particular, the fundamental directions (generative linguistics, cognitive linguistics, including case grammar, role grammar, etc.) in aspect of their theoretical orientation, impact on applied sciences, and finally in regard to studied problems – those issues of interest to many linguists and not only linguists. A certain starting point is a generative linguistics that "since the moment of its occurrence and till now" focuses mostly only on the syntax. This is because the generative paradigm significantly impact on other areas of linguistic thought that by its origin partly attributable to it, but they are beyond its borders, among which is occupied by the case grammar or approach from "deep structures" [Closs 1965: 70], which should not be confused with generative grammar. The approach from "deep structures" has parallels with many methods his supporters pointed on some of them. The concept of "deep structures" gradually disappears, a notion of abstract process that is typical for the theory of generative grammars, and descriptions are progressively again descriptions of statics instead of dynamics of language. Therefore syntactic component is used as not an analog of construction of expression in its dynamic deploy and as static system as standard phrases and the ratio between them – syntax is a component within the description of lexical semantics [Enç 1991: 14], which leads a shift of emphasis in the study of the sentence structure at deep and surface levels and, as a consequence – the rise of consideration the needs of national-linguistic specificity of studied language. The main source of the case grammar, the founder of which is an American linguist Charles Fillmore, is the theory of generative grammar of Noam Chomsky, who established a number of universal principles and parameters that explain not only the existence of many linguistic phenomena, but the principle of lack of certain phenomena in natural languages [Путіліна 2010]. Case grammar is the direction of grammatical description of the sentence semantic structure on the basis of active valence of predicate and cogitative analogues of situation circumstances, presented as the semantic cases that emerged within the transformational generative grammar the end of 60s of the 20th century. The value of the appearance of this theory is difficult to overestimate. Thus, Ch. Hokket, principled opponent of Noam Chomsky`s ideas, has described the emergence of "syntactic structure" like fourth major discovery in linguistics over the last 200 years. Noam Chomsky`s book "Syntactic Structures" (1957), since the release of which officially dates back generative linguistics as a science not only caused a revolution in linguistics, but also had a major impact on the further development of other scientific fields, such as psychology, philosophy, pedagogy, sociology, anthropology, theory of artificial intelligence, and eventually led to the emergence of cognitive science, in which case grammar is one of the research areas. Empirical adequacy of this theory was significantly higher than other linguistic theories and left no doubt that this trend is a major step in the right direction in the history of construction of science-based theory of syntax in particular and language in general. A common feature of case grammar and the first versions of generative one is interpretation of the sentence structure of any natural language by stating presence of syntactic representations of two levels in the human speech apparatus – the level of deep structure and level of surface structure, related by transformations. Such transformations are able to transfer some of the deep structure in a number of surface structures [Chomsky 1957; Chomsky 1965; Fillmore 1968]. 24

SECTION І. Theory of Language The history of formation of case grammar conceptual principles such as universality, the presence of deep semantic roles (cases), domineering role of the predicate in forming proposition and further building structure of all the sentence around predicate represented by verb or verbal form, and deep cases (typically is nominal forms), determined by it, etc. has origins in those linguophilosophical theories, that by the time of its emergence is far more advanced theory of generative grammar. One of the components of the philosophical foundations of Charles Fillmore`s concept (and Noam Chomsky`s theory) was the doctrine of Descartes (Cartesius): the role of speaker`s intuition, the idea of innate concepts – a limited number of "universal possibly congenital identifying concepts, some types of assertions that man can do about events occurring around "on which a deep case is formed. This postulate of universality of constituents of the deep structure sentence (i.e. semantic cases available in any language of the world in the treatment of representatives of case grammar) goes back to R. Descartes`s ideas of creation of so-called philosophical language, general grammar, based on the laws of logic that had to absorb such a set of concepts that have enabled it to deduce new structures as a result of formal operations behind certain algorithm. One of the sources of generative grammar and theory of deep is the doctrine of cases W. von Humboldt, his idea of creative nature of language, the essence of which is that it has a certain limited number of tools to represent an unlimited number of opinions that arise in various situations [Гумбольдт 1964: 92]. The main thesis of his philosophical conception of language, based on German classical philosophy of H.W. F. Hegel, I. Kant, F.W.J. Schelling, F.G. Jacobi, is emphasizing the specificity of each individual language and uniqueness of the system expression means as a whole, therefore in the projection on the present, it can serve as a basis for the formulation of the thesis of a unique set of language means inherent in Modern English, used in communicative strategies and tactics to achieve the desired communicative effect. In general linguistic views of W. von Humboldt and representatives of psychological direction, including O.O. Potebnja largely determined the further development of linguistics, and they have contributed in the 50s of the 20th century, the emergence of psycholinguistics, ideas of which permeate theories of neohumboldtianities. They are an important component of ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics, generative and cognitive linguistics, including case grammar with the prospect of further practical application in modern politicum. The doctrine of Charles Fillmore about universal nature of language deep structures also echoes with the thoughts of J. Baudouin de Courtenay, who due to linguistic research says the existence of certain universalias that are "common to all mankind similarities and differences, regardless of genealogy historical kinship or contacts in space, and geography" [Бодуэн де Куртенэ 1963: 342], which causes the possibility of information influence on speakers of other languages (not English) provided the correct translation, on the one hand, but also provoked the risk of distortion of information in the case of unskilled transfer by means of another language, on the other. Special attention should be paid also a link of deep cases theory with the theory of G. Guillaume, founder of the Psyhosystematics School and creator of linguistic theory of mentalism, also called anthropological linguistics and phenomenology of language. Despite a clear communicative orientation of the doctrine of G. Guillaume, there is some similarity of some of its provisions with the theory of Charles Fillmore. This is so-called "postulate of simplicity." Linguist considers that the underlying operations that are reliance of language structure, are not many and not diverse, their number is limited and their majority is minimum variable [Гийом 2004: 51]. This, in his opinion would explain why language can easily be included in every thought and why it is given to anyone. On this question G. Guillaume suggested a response that brings him to the theory of universal grammar theory and case grammar – the idea of basic deep sentence: basic operations of language (its basic constructions) are extremely simple, few and constantly repeated operations (constructions) that is manageable by nature of thinking which operates elementary structures, that form the basis of any language. 25

LINGUISTIC STUDIES. Volume 30 The idea of a general theory of language involving not only information about the universal structure of language, but it also according to their semantics which is inherent case grammar study and it was developed in generative linguistics (Standard Theory of N. Chomsky) [Chomsky 1957; Chomsky 1965]. The most widely it is presented in the works of Noam Chomsky in 70s of 20th century, known as the Extended Standard Theory. The main difference between the Standard Theory and Extended Standard Theory, according to F. Newmeyer, is that it becomes particularly important a semantic interpretation of linguistic units and lexical component of theory. This is caused by the realization that not all linguistic processes are self-syntactic and a linguistic system of a person necessarily contains numerous lexical rules and rules of semantic interpretation [Newmeyer 1986: 140]. So, to the end of 70s is beginning to gain of force the Lexical Extended Standard Theory that covered not only the necessary rules of semantic component of language as a whole, but also attached great importance to a rich lexicon of individual languages, without which it is impossible to imagine a scientifically justified theory of grammar. J. Beilin explains it its striving to deny the theory of generative semantics, which was based on Katz – Postal hypothesis [Бейлин 2002: 26; Katz, Postal 1964: 34], which consisted in the fact that transformations will never change the value of the expression, and all that has semantic interpretation should be presented at the deep structure. In the projection on the application of this thesis in contemporary political space it is necessary to say that all manipulative tactics based not on the surface lexical level, but rather appeal to the deep structures of speech of member of society. European cognitive science, replacing Extended Standard Theory and functional linguistics, is more flexible on the use of the experience of other linguistic areas, because of the specificity of the method is cognitive science, which is to try a combination of different sciences, harmonization of data and finding a meaning in their correlations. In general cognitive linguistics is multiparadigmatic science because it has learned the many achievements of previous linguistic paradigms, and it develops inherited from linguistics, philosophy, and psychology classical problems of relationships between language and thinking [Schiffer, Steel 1988: 11], treating them in slightly different sense (in categories such as knowledge and its linguistic varieties, language ways of expression, and hence the influence, etc.). Its main idea is that human language ability is part of cognitive one. Cognitive linguistics is directly correlated with the problems of creating nationallanguage picture of the world, features of its representativeness at various levels, resulting in increased attention to the cognitive-linguistic area and cognitive-linguistic framework. This allows consideration of many categorical units (vocabulary, word-formative, morphological, syntactic levels) in terms of filling cognitive content. Therefore, case grammar (case grammar), which based on the principle of unity of syntactic structures and their semantic content considering the national language specifics are entirely organic phenomenon on the general background of cognitive grammar theories and concepts. One of the most important results of case grammar is and the concept of deep cases: Agentive, Factitive, Dative, Instrumentalis, Objective, and Locative [Fillmore 1968]. A. Goldberg, describing the doctrine of Ch. Fillmore points out that from the standpoint of case grammar syntactic level syntactic structure – a kind of a projection of lexical requirements ("syntax is a projection of lexical requirements") [Goldberg 1995: 11]. This principle points to the connection with generative grammar, including Government and Binding Theory of N. Chomsky, in which it is explicitly presented as Projection Principle, Grammar of lexical functions of J. Bresnan, functional grammar, wherein this principle is taken as a base, and model "Meaning ↔ Text". So if syntax reflects lexical constraints, first of all, it is should reflect the semantic roles of the verb. The verb is in the center of syntactic structure, similar to formal logic, describing the relation between the predicate and its arguments: verb – is a n-seater predicate that involves arguments of a certain type [Goldberg 1995: 14-15] (after Ch. Fillmore verb with nouns dependent on him (exponents of deep cases at surface level) generates a proposal of sentence [Fillmore 1968: 31]. However, as observed by A. Goldberg, the reverse process takes place: the verb is semantically n-argument predicate what is set on the basis of the n-number of its objects [Goldberg 1995: 17] (arguments, or more precisely – deep 26

SECTION І. Theory of Language cases); on the other hand, the verb has n objects, because it has n- argument semantic structure [ibid. 18]. There is constant interaction and mutual definability of syntactic and lexical components: data of lexical compatibility available in a certain language are involved to the process of forming deep structure of the sentence and expression at surface level of a certain language. This is what case grammar differs from other linguistic trends that have traditionally credited to cognitive linguistics. This view is shared not all linguists, some of which are inclined to consider it part of other linguistic areas or at least – intermediary between them. Theory of Role and Reference Grammar by R.D. Van Valin is the nearest functional theory to concepts of case grammar of Ch. Fillmore. If we disregard the universal nature of the grammar, there is shared by both theories is the view on language as a system, which is in the center of grammar, serving not autonomous, but rather a relatively motivated by semantic and communicative factors [Van Valin 1993]. Unlike the majority of supporters of functional approach to the study of linguistic facts, R.D. Van Valin pays great attention to the study of grammar and he does not consider it can be reduced to some other phenomenon such as discourse [Van Valin 1981]. As well as Ch. Fillmore, he seeks not only to describe but also to explain grammar, recognizing that language cannot be reduced to the grammar. The vision of an elementary sentence structure is another general feature, the center of which predicate and determined by it arguments constitute, which together form the core of the sentence, and the rest of elements are additional to the periphery (cf. the structure of proposal on the theory of Ch. Fillmore [Fillmore 1968: 31]). But this theory is not inherent in predicting specific mechanisms to transfer structures from one level to another – there is no analogue of transformations and syntactic level is directly linked with semantic one that are not characteristic for case grammar [Путіліна 2011; Fillmore 1968]. The universal character of case grammar appears in an attempt to manifest syntax categories, which deep cases are in light of case grammar – general to all languages of the world, by which could be describe semantic structure of any sentence in any language [Fillmore 1968: 42]. This allows talk about it belongs to the linguistics of universalias, or universalism. The main feature of universalism is that it seeks to identify linguistic universalias inductively while to think in terms common to all languages, and linguistic universalias this are not directly a separate issue, but a general working principle, the foundation on which is based the study of various problems – both new and those that have been formulated by linguists of previous ages. "Linguistic universalias by their nature sum up statements about the characteristics or tendencies shared by all people in their speech activity" [Greenberg 1957: 52]. They form the most general laws of linguistics and, thus, they are opposed to the method and tasks of descriptive linguistics. Since language is also the aspect of individual behavior and aspect of human culture, its universalias are the main point of intersection with the psychological principles that are the basis of individual behavior, and it is the main source of statements about the culture of mankind in general. Therefore, it is evident that the need to "organize a coordinated efforts beyond the individual capabilities to put on the solid ground the real facts about universalias in language" [Ibid. 378-379]. Some representatives of universal linguistics (M. Halle, R. Jacobson et al.) also see in linguistic universalias an effective means to solve a reasonably diverse, including traditional, problems of linguistics [Halle 1962: 65], because languages of the world can actually be seen as set of variants of the same theme that covers the whole world – human language. Case grammar of Ch. Fillmore is based by the same principle in which a solution to the problem of the surface manifestation of deep cases requires consideration of the laws of lexical and grammatical compatibility of components in a given particular language [Fillmore 1968]. There is a narrow and a broad interpretation of linguistic universalias. The narrow understanding involves the allocation of a certain fact or linguistic category that necessarily has a formal expression and relates to mainly individual words or word forms (cf. deep cases). Wide approach with all the similarities to a narrow on, provides an interpretation of universalias concerning the categories which I.I. Meshchaninov calls the notion. These categories, as opposed to grammatical, cannot have a formal expression. They are characteristic not to individual words and 27

LINGUISTIC STUDIES. Volume 30 systems of their forms but to broad class of words [Мещанинов 1963: 34]. These universal categories are inherent in all or most of the languages of the world (for example, category of gender, temporality, personality, etc.). Due to its versatility they provide an opportunity to describe different systems languages the same way and to detect their (ie categories) a specificity of manifestation in each language while to characterize and to form speech-intellective activity of native speaker of a single language, such as English. If in O. Espersen`s concept of notion categories there are two opposing trends: on the one hand, he insists on extralinguistic character of notion categories, and the other, he gives them a linguistic value (despite proclaiming extralinguistic nature of these categories (activity, passivity, number, person, aspect, degree of comparison, etc.), their establishment is actually determined by the language grammatical categories and other language tools), then I.I. Meshchaninov strongly emphasizes self-linguistic nature of notion categories and proposes criteria of systematicity of language representation as a necessary attribute of such categories. Language character of universalias is also accented in the grammar case and closes to it Role and Reference Grammar of R.D. Van Valin, but an understanding of that it may be universal, differs significantly in both grammars. So, Ch. Fillmore, speaking about deep cases, theoretically inherent in all languages of the world, defines them as deep syntactical-semantic relations and with the semantic aspect he brings forward their syntactic nature, which is reflected in the theory of the deep sentence structure, that contain the proposal, which also consists of a predicate and deep cases directly dependent on it. In contrast to Ch. Fillmore, R.D. Van Valin not insists on that all languages must have some syntactic relations that claim to universal status. This does not necessarily, but in those languages where they are, they can be arranged in different ways [Кибрик, Плунгян 2002, с. 289]. As an example of one of these languages where there is no reason to postulate syntactic relations, the researcher suggests Acehnese language (Austronesian language family, Malayo-Polynesian group, Sumatra) in the description, where all syntactic constructions can be described by semantic roles, and there is no need to attract additional level of syntactic constructions [Van Valin 1981]. From this we can conclude that, obviously, we have taken into account both levels (and lexical, and grammatical (syntactic) in analysis of deep cases / roles and specificity of their representation by means of of a particular language, including English. In addition, accumulated in linguistic literature information ergative and active languages, and some others (e.g., Philippine ones), force to abandon these concepts and look for alternative, more universal approaches, one of which may be a description of semantic roles general to all languages. According to R.D. Van Valin, proof of this may be English or it Dyirbal which in many constructions are allocated mentioned syntactic relations that do not coincide with semantic roles, among which one is dominant and the others are grouped around [Van Valin 1981: 362-364]. Equally important and directly related to the theory of deep cases, in our opinion, is the idea of macroroles of R.D. Van Valin, among which is Actor and literally „one who is affected‟ (Undergoer) [Van Valin 1993: 41]. The need for macroroles due to the fact that in grammars of most languages groups of thematic relations (set of semantic roles, defined for this or that verb based on its belonging to a certain lexical-semantic group and logical structure that defines a set of verbal arguments, and besides formalism and logical structure are fell), proposed by the researcher, are equally. Thus, in English in the construction with forms of active voice an Agent (purposeful executor of controlled action), Effector (a general concept for tools and forces that carry out influence, but not necessarily controlled or targeted), Experiencer (the person for whom something is desired) and Place (locative) (general concept for a group of relations: source, purpose, recipient, etc.) act as the Subject and Patient (member of action due to which he can radically change his properties), Theme (participant of action, which is exposed to influence, but does not change drastically their characteristics), Place, and Experiencer as direct object. These thematic groups of semantic relations have certain unity, which determines their same behavior. The most common Actor is Agent, but in 28

SECTION І. Theory of Language the absence of Agent Effector, Experiencer, Place and even Theme can be the first (e.g.., the verb to roll), and the most typical Undergoer is Patient, but it may be Theme, Place, Experiencer or Effector (causated person with causative verbs): for verb to cry executor of action – Effector; for to run a person who runs – Agent; for to think someone who thinks – Experiencer; for to send someone who sends – Actor, a letter – Undergoer, and recipient of a letter – an argument that does not have macrorole, because, in theory of R.D. Van Valin, in a verb that has more than two arguments, one of them is deprived of macrorole [Van Valin 1993: 44-45]. There is much in common even in the definitions between thematic ratios of R.D. Van Valin and deep cases of Charles Fillmore (cf. Agentive – case of living creature – initiator of action in theory of Charles Fillmore and Agent in works of R.D. in Van Valin; Locative – the case that points to the location or spatial orientation of action or status and place in accordance, etc. [Fillmore 1968: 24]). It seems possible association of deep cases into two groups according to the general deep role they perform in a sentence and typical surface realization (such as in English), namely: group of Actors provides such cases as Agentive (A), Dative (D), Instrumentalis (I), and the group of Undergoer – Objective (O), Locative (L), and Factitive (F). However, some thematic groups are some generalizing labels for groups of relations (foremost location) that the researcher recognizes, and this generalization makes it difficult to analyze a sentence semantic structure and to define linguistic universalias on this basis. Unlike the notion of subject, concept of (semantic) role characterizes not a language by describing its grammatical structure in general, but a specific structure in its semantic first-principle basis [Van Valin 1981: 367]. The linguist argues the value of this thesis that in many languages semantic roles are organized around different dominant in the construction of various types (as in language of Jakaltek (Maya language family, Central America), he identifies five different semantic roles implemented in seven major syntactic structures). Numerous difficulties associated with the use of syntactic relations disappear. The choice of semantic dominant, which is built around the syntactic structure, may depend on the discourse-pragmatic factors, including if a certain referent (object marked with a sign, or the object pointed to by the statement that relates to the real or imaginary world [Загнітко 2006: 57]) is a main actor of discourse, in some languages, he was choose by dominant of sentence semantic structure, regardless of his role: if he acts as Actor, it is used a form of active voice, and if as Undergoer – passive voice, particularly in English [Van Valin 1993: 88]. Instead of this in other languages (mostly non-European type) such as Amele (Papuan language), an Actor is chosen only by dominant, even if the main character – Undergoer. This may explain a specificity of formal-surface realization of deep structure categories in Modern English as its grammatical structure requires the mandatory presence of a form in a sentence that would displaced position of the subject and would be the so-called formal zero marker of an Actors (Agentive or Dative at the level of deep cases). As for the status of cases as of deep linguistic universalias, they should be classified as absolute universalias submitted in all languages. The confirmation of this can be a remark of Ch. Fillmore that case has to take place in the base component of the grammar of any language, and it shall be provided a set of case values, suitable for any language with all syntactic, lexical, and semantic consequences. Other universalias studied in the grammar case – namely, a type of sentence is also related with this thesis. Underlining the syntactic but not a self-morphological nature of the universal system of deep cases, Ch. Fillmore points out that various sets of cases that differ from each other inherent simple sentences, express the concept of "type of sentence", which can be deemed to have has a universal appeal, regardless of certain surface differences in a particular language (such as the choice of the subject, etc.) (cf. specificity of English sentence structure with necessarily filled position of executant of action [Fillmore 1968: 32-33]). Thus, the case grammar is a separate direction of cognitive research with typical for it a twolevel principle of sentence interpretation: the level of deep structures that formed by the predicate and its arguments – deep cases, and the level of surface representation of these structures by means of formal grammar a certain language, and these levels are interrelated and mutually determined, 29

LINGUISTIC STUDIES. Volume 30 resulting in a study of a certain language sentence not only features of the grammatical structure of the language, but also the principles of compatibility of the words takes into account. The main source of the theory of deep cases is the concept of Noam Chomsky`s generative grammar, including his Standard Theory and Extended Standard Theory. However, the origins of Ch. Fillmore`s philosophical theory lie in the synthesis of linguistic-philosophical concepts of F. Bacon and R. Descartes to philosophy of neopositivism. Linguistic-theoretical basis of case grammar is formed by a complex set of theories and ideas, from the first attempts of universal grammar ending and the combination of generative linguistics, cognitive linguistics and functionalism. In addition, within the frameworks of case and role grammars the system of deep categories (deep cases / roles), which are widely used as one of the linguistic means of shaping public opinion in the application of any communication strategy or tactics, are singled out. Perspective for further studies is that case and role grammars offer a new approach to the treatment of mental foundations speech-intellective native speaker of certain language and open up the possibility to use the results of relevant research in a plane of other scientific-theoretical and practical spheres of human activity, particularly in politics. References Бейлин 2002: Бейлин, Дж. Краткая история генеративной грамматики [Текст] / Дж. Бейлин // Современная американская лингвистика : Фундаментальные направления / Под ред. А. А. Кибрика, И. М. Кобозевой и И. А. Секериной. – М. : Едиториал УРСС, 2002. – С. 13-57. Бодуэн де Куртенэ 1963: Бодуэн де Куртенэ, И.А. Избранные труды по общему языкознанию [Текст] / И. А. Бодуэн де Куртенэ. – Т. 1-2. – М. : Наука, 1963. – 567 с. Гийом 2004: Гийом, Г. Принципы теоретической лингвистики. Сборник неизданных текстов, подготовленный под руководством и с предисловием Рока Валена [Текст] / Г. Гийом : Пер. с фр. / Общ. ред., послесл. и коммент. Л. М. Скрелиной. Изд. 2-е, испр. – М. : Едиториал УРСС, 2004. – 224 с. Гумбольдт 1964: Гумбольдт, В. фон. О различии строения человеческих языков и его влиянии на на духовное развитие человеческого рода [Текст] / В. фон. Гумбольдт // Звегинцев, В.А. История языкознания ХІХ – ХХ веков в очерках и извлечениях. – Ч. І. – М. : Просвещение, 1964. – С. 85-104. Загнітко 2006: Загнітко, А.П. Сучасні лінгвістичні теорії : Монографія [Текст] / А. П. Загнітко. –Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2006. – 338 с. Мещанинов 1963: Мещанинов, И.И. Структура предложения [Текст] / И. И. Мещанинов. – М.-Л. : Изд-во АН СССР, 1963. – 104 с. Путіліна 2010: Путіліна, О.Л. Джерела постання відмінкової граматики (V ст. до н.е. – поч. ХХ ст. н.е.) [Текст] / О. Л. Путіліна // Лінгвістичні студії : Зб. наук. праць. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2010. – Вип. 21. – С. 45-51. Путіліна 2011: Путіліна, О.Л. Джерела постання відмінкової граматики (від поч ХХ ст. і до сьогодні) [Текст] / О. Л. Путіліна // Лінгвістичні студії : Зб. наук. праць. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2011. – Вип. 22. – С. 36-42. Chomsky 1957: Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures [Text] / N. Chomsky. – The Hague : Mouton, 1957. – 134 pр. Chomsky 1965: Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax [Text] / N. Chomsky. – Cambridge (Mass.) : MIT Press, 1965. – 265 pр. Closs 1965: Closs, E. Diachronic Syntax and Generative Grammar [Text] / E. Closs // Language. – Vol. 41. – 1965. – Pp. 61-73. Enç 1991: Enç, M. The Semantics of Specificity [Text] / M. Enç // Linguistic Inquiry. – Part. 22.1. – 1991. – Pp. 1-25. 30

SECTION І. Theory of Language Fillmore 1968: Fillmore, Ch. The case for case [Text] / Ch. Fillmore // Universals in Linguistic Theory / Ed. by E. Bach and R.T. Harms. – New York : Holt et al. – Reinehart, 1968. – Pp. 1-88. Goldberg 1995: Goldberg, A. A Construction Grammar Approach Argument Structure [Text] / A. Goldberg. – Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, 1995. – 326 pp. Greenberg 1957: Greenberg, J. Essays in linguistics [Text] / J. Greenberg // Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology. – № 24. – New York, 1957. – Pp. 44-67. Halle 1962: Halle, M. Phonology in generative grammar [Text] / M. Halle // Word. – Vol. 18. – № 1. – 1962. – Pp. 54-72. Katz, Postal 1964: Katz, J.J., Postal, P. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions [Text] / J. J. Katz, P. Postal. – Cambridge (Mass.) : MIT Press, 1964. – 286 pp. Newmeyer 1986: Newmeyer, F. Linguistic Theory in America [Text] / F. Newmeyer. – 2nd edition. – Orlando : Academic Press, 1986. – 341 pр. Schiffer, Steel 1988: Schiffer, S., Steel, S. (eds.) Cognition and representation [Text] / S. Schiffer, S. Steel. – Colorado : Boulder, 1988. – 411 pp. Van Valin 1981: Van Valin, R.D.Jr. Grammatical Relations in Ergative Languages [Text] / R. D. Jr. Van Valin. – Studies in Language 5, 1981. – Pp. 361-394. Van Valin 1993: Van Valin, R.D.Jr. A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar [Text] / R. D. Jr. Van Valin // Van Valin, R.D.Jr. (ed.). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. – Amsterdam : Benjamins, 1993. – Pp. 1-166. Стаття присвячена проблемі дефініції відмінкової і рольової граматик у світлі загальної лінгвістичної парадигми, визначенню джерел відмінкової граматики, простеженню причин, передумов і специфіки її розвитку і становлення як самостійного лінгвістичного напрямку. Категорія відмінка / ролі визначена як базова категорія в концепції відмінкової / рольової граматики. Розглянуто процес розвитку визначальних принципів теорії глибинних відмінків у межах магістральних напрямів світової лінгвістики від універсальної граматики до теорій функціоналізму, так званої традиційної лінгвістики і частково генеративістики. Вказано на те, що дослідження глибинних категорій відкриває можливість для застосування рузультатів відповідних досліджень у площині інших науковотеоретичних і практичних сфер людської діяльності, зокрема у сфері політики. Ключові слова: відмінкова граматика, комунікативна стратегія, комунікативна тактика, носій мови, англійськомовний політикум, технологія формування громадської думки, рольова граматика, універсалізм, універсалія, універсальна граматика. Available 14 January 2015. Anatoliy Zahnitko УДК 801.55 СИСТЕМНІСТЬ КАТЕГОРІЙНОЇ СЕМАНТИКИ: РІВНЕВО-ТИПОЛОГІЙНІ ВИЯВИ The features of ratio of core and peripheral planes of categorical semantics with the determination of its complete disappearance regularities have been observed. The classificatory levels of morphological categories like morphological category of noun number have been characterized, and the main trends of inter-categorical transformations have been defined. Keywords: morphological category, categorical semantics, classificatory level of morphological categories. Поняття системності та “силового поля” категорійної семантики пов‟язано з особливостями її регулярного вияву відповідними формальними засобами: пол.-ем – орудний відмінок, однина, середній рід; чита[j]-у – теперішній час, 1-а особа, однина, дійсний спосіб, © Zahnitko A., 2015

31