А П Загнітко - Лінгвістичні студії - страница 65
Nicolaisen, F. H. (1978). Are There Connotative Names? Names, 26, 40-47.
Searle, J. R. (1991). The Problem of Proper Names. Semantics. An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 134-141.
Simmonds, F. N. (1996). Reconstructing Womanhood, Reconstructing Feminism. Writings on Black Women, edited by D. Jarett-Macauley, 109-115.
Utley, F. L. (1993). The Linguistic Component of Onomastics. Names, 3 (II), 145-176.
Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org Vitae
Yevheniia S. Sysoieva is Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor at Department of English Philology in Donetsk National University. Her research areas include cognitive linguistics, lexicography linguistics, and text linguistics.
UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN NON-MOTIVATED STRUCTURALLY COMPOUND PREPOSITIONS: TRANSLATION, DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTIONING
Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics, Donetsk National University, Donetsk, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
Department of Russian as Foreign Language for Humanities Students, the Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Available 23 September 2012.
The researches on the preposition as a category and on other unit functioning as prepositions are very relevant today. It appeared that the traditional grammar approach to this category is very narrow and restricted, prepositional classifications often are not apt. That is the reason for urgency for full presentation of the prepositional category on the functional base, including an efficient and consistent structuring and typology researches, for closely related languages as well. Thus, the analysis has revealed that the Ukrainian language is richer concerning the prepositions in question than the Russian, so far it seems urgent to find Russian equivalents for Ukrainian non-motivated structurally compound prepositions.
The aim of the article is a comparison of the Ukrainian and the Russian non-motivated structurally compound prepositions and search of Russian equivalents for Ukrainian prepositions being discussed; an adjustment of the class in question content; an analysis of system possibilities concerning the category of prepositions in Russian within the objective grammar (the real use of substandard units).
In order to fulfill the purposes is the article it's essential to solve the following tasks:
1) to present the whole class of structurally compound non-motivated prepositions in Ukrainian and Russian;
2) to describe the peculiarities of the Ukrainian prepositions in question (for they are much more numerous);
3) to describe completely one prepositional group within the class being discussed and propose differentiated meaning for units of the group;
4) to find Russian equivalents for the Ukrainian units;
5) to predict and to reveal in real usage Russian prepositions comparable with the Ukrainian ones.
On the basis of the analysis the following conclusion has to be made: the Ukrainian prepositions in much more rich concerning the prepositions in question that the Russian; we have revealed 24 structurally compound non-motivated prepositions in Ukrainian and there are only 4 standard units of the kind in Russian. The following peculiarities of the Ukrainian units have been found: high productivity, frequent usage, ability to express different type of semantic-syntactic meanings and to collocate with different noun forms.
One group of prepositions including po has been described in detail; it has been shown that Russian equivalents for the Ukrainian prepositions of the group could be as following: corresponding Russian prepositions (only po-nad and po-za); non-motivated prepositions (the equivalents of the first, second or third part of Ukrainian unit of other non-motivated prepositions).
Motivated prepositions, prepositional analogues, word of other parts of speech; the following peculiarities of the group has been revealed: the ability of Ukrainian prepositions z-ponad, pobilya, povz, poza, pomizh, ponad, popid to express different types of locative meaning (in Russian they are considerably less polysemantic); syncretism of some Ukrainian prepositions; the ability of Ukrainian prepositions ponad and z-ponad to express quantity characteristic which is not typical of corresponding Russian prepositions. Finally a list of substandard non-motivated structurally compound Russian prepositions which are common in real use has been presented.
A detail study of the Ukrainian and Russian prepositional systems, creation of a grammar of preposition, search and description of all units able to function as a preposition seem very perspective. Such a wide and innovative approach to the category of preposition increases the relevance of comparative studies, fulfilled on the common basis of prepositional description for different languages.
► In the article a special group of non-motivated structurally compound prepositions which includes contaminations of non-motivated (simple) prepositions regardless of their spelling is described. ► The Ukrainian and Russian prepositions of the group are compared. ► Some peculiarities of the Ukrainian prepositions are revealed. ► The semantics of the non-motivated structurally compound Ukrainian prepositions including po (по) are enumerated. ► Russian equivalents for the Ukrainian prepositions in question are presented. ► System-defined opportunities of the Russian language in this field are shown (real but substandard examples).
Keywords: objective grammar, preposition, prepositional unit, fusion preposition, the Russian language, non-motivated structurally compound prepositions, the Ukrainian language, functional grammar.
Arhipov, A. V. (2009). Tipologija komitativnyh konstrukcij. M.: Znak.
Balaban, G. S. (2007). Dynamichni protsesy v pryymennykoviy systemi suchasnoyi ukrayins'koyi literaturnoyi movy. Avtoref. dys. ... kand. filol. nauk: 10.02.01 - ukrayins'ka mova. K.
Vinogradova, E. N. (2010). Ob odnoj gruppe kombinirovannyh predlogov (iz-za, naprotiv i pod.). Jazyk, literatura, kul'tura: aktual'nye problemy izuchenija i prepodavanija: sb. nauchnyh i nauchno-metodich. statej, 6, 78-84.
M.: MAKS Press.
Vinogradova, E. N. (2010). K voprosu o predlogah-srashhenijah. Russkij jazyk: istoricheskie sud'by i sovremennost'. IV Mezhdunarodnyj kongress issledovatelej russkogo jazyka. Trudy i materially, 387-388. M.: Izd vo Mosk. un-ta.
Vsevolodova, M. V. & Vladimirskij, E. Ju. (2008). Sposoby vyrazhenija prostranstvennyh otnoshenij v sovremennom russkom jazyke. M.: LKI.
Vsevolodova, M. V. & Klobukov, E. V. & Kukushkina, O. V. & Polikarpov, A. A. (2003). K osnovanijam funkcional'no-kommunikativnoj grammatiki russkogo predloga. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 9. Filologija,
Vsevolodova, M. V. & Kukushkina, O. V. & Polikarpov, A. A. Russkie predlogi i sredstva predlozhnogo tipa. Materialy k funkcional'no-grammaticheskomu opisaniju real'nogo upotreblenija. Vvedenie v objektivnuju grammatiku i leksikografiju russkih predlozhnyh edinic. Izd-vo URSS.
Vsevolodova, M. V. & Vinogradova, E. N. & Chaplygina, T. E. Russkie predlogi i sredstva predlozhnogo tipa. Materialy k funkcional'no-grammaticheskomu opisaniju real'nogo upotreblenija. Reestr russkih predlozhnyh edinic A -VRJaDAH (kogo-chego). Izd-vo URSS.
Vsevolodova, M. V. & Vinogradova, E. N. & Chaplygina, T. E. Russkie predlogi i sredstva predlozhnogo tipa. Materialy k funkcional'no-grammaticheskomu opisaniju real'nogo upotreblenija. Reestr russkih predlozhnyh edinic V RJaDU (kogo-chego) - VYShINYS(O) (chem) (skol'ko edinic). Izd-vo URSS.
Galaktionova, I. V. (2007). Predlog: prepozicija i postpozicija. Russkij jazyk: istoricheskie sud'by i sovremennost'. ІІІ Mezhdunarodnyj kongress issledovatelej russkogo jazyka. Trudy i materially, 272. M.: MAKS Press.
Gecova, O. G. (2004). Predlog v dialektnom. Aktual'nye problemy dialektologii i istoricheskoj leksikologii russkogo jazyka. Russkij jazyk: istoricheskie sud'by i sovremennost'. II Mezhdunarodnyj kongress issledovatelej russkogo. Trudy i materialy, 81-82. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta.
Dal', V. (2006). Tolkovyj slovar' zhivogo velikorusskogo jazyka. M.: Russkij jazyk Media.
Mel'nychuk, O. S. & Boldyryev, R. V. (2006). Etymolohichnyy slovnyk ukrayins'koyi movy, 5. Instytut movoznavstva im. O. O. Potebni. K.: Naukova dumka.
Zahnitko, A. P. & Danylyuk, I. H. & Sytar, H. V. & Shchukina, I. A. (2007). Slovnyk ukrayins'kykh pryymennykiv. Donets'k: TOV VKF "BAO".
Zahnitko, A. P. (2008). Stupeni i rivni pryymennykovosti. Ucrainica III. Soucasnd ukrajinistika: Problemy jazyka, literatury a kultury. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, 17-22.
Issledovanija (2000). Issledovanija po semantike predlogov. M.: Russkie slovari.
Kanyushkevich, M. I. (2008-2010). Belaruskiya prynazovnki i ikh analahi. Hramatyka real'naha vzhyvannya. Materyyaly da slovnika, 1-3. Hrodna: HrDU.
Kravchenko, O. N. (2000). Leksikograficheskaja interpretacija sopostavitel'nyh predlogov krome, pomimo, narjadu s. Etap portretirovanija. Diss.... kand. filol. nauk. Vladivostok: Dal'nevostochnyj gosudarstvennyj universitet.
Krejdlin, G. E. (1994). Metafora semanticheskih prostranstv i znachenie predloga. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 27.
Kurylo, O. (2004). Uvahy do suchasnoyi ukrayins'koyi literaturnoyi movy. K.: Vydavnytstvo Solomiyi Pavlychko "Osnovy".
Kushch, N. V. (2009). Pryymennykova ekvivalentnist' v ukrayins'kiy hramatytsi: struktura, semantyka, funktsiyi. Dys. . kand. filol. nauk. Donets'k: Donets'kyy nats. un-t.
Loginova, I. M. (2010). Predposylki dlja foneticheskogo opisanija russkih predlogov. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 9. Filologija, 6, 77-85.
Lyakhur, L. (2005). Perspektivy leksikograficheskogo opisanija predlozhnoj sistemy slavjanskih jazykov (na materiale pol'skogo jazyka). Linhvistychni studiyi, 13, 78-80. Donets'k: DonNU.
Peshkovskij, A. M. (2010). Objektivnaja i normativnaja tochka zrenija na jazyk. M.: Librokom.
Plungjan, V. A. & Rahilina, E. V. (1996). Polisemija sluzhebnyh slov: predlogi cherez i skvoz'. Rusistika segodnja, 3, 1-17.
Russkaja grammatika (1982). Russkaja grammatika. M.: Nauka.
Seliverstova, O. N. (1999). Imejut li predlogi tol'ko grammaticheskoe znachenie? Voprosy filologii, 3, 26-30. M.:
Seliverstova, O. N. (2001). Znachenija predlogov i nekotorye obshhie problemy semantiki. Russkij jazyk: peresekaja granicy, 220-232. Dubna: Mezhdunarodnyj Universitet prirody, obshhestva i cheloveka "Dubna".
Sitar', A. V. & Vinogradova, E. N. (2012). Strukturno-slozhnye nemotivirovannye predlogi v ukrainskom i russkom jazykah. Slavjanskie jazyki i kul'tury v sovremennom mire: II Mezhdunarodnyj nauchnyj simpozium. Trudy i
materially, 270-271. M.: MGU.
Slavyanskyte predlozy (2007). Slavyanskyte predlozy. Velyko Tyrnovo: YVYS.
Smerechyns'kyy, S. (1932). Narysy z ukrayinskoho syntaksysu u zv"yazku z frazeolohiyeyu ta stylistykoyu. Kharkiv: Rad. shk.
Solonickij, A. V. (2003). Problemy semantiki russkih pervoobraznyh predlogov. Vladivostok: Izd-vo Dal'nevostochnogo universiteta.
Tihomirova, T. S. (1972). Processy adverbializacii form tvoritel'nogo bespredlozhnogo v pol'skom jazyke. Diss. ... kand. filol. nauk. M.: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet im. M. V. Lomonosova.
Zahnitko, A. P. & Vynohradova, K. M. & Danylyuk, I. H. & Zahnitko, N. H. & Kushch, N. V. & Orans'ka, M. V. & Kitayeva, T. M. & Sytar, H. V. & Chekalina, V. L. & Shchukina, I. A. (2009). Funktsional'no-
komunikatyvna i tekstova paradyhma ukrayins'kykh pryymennykiv ta yikhnikh ekvivalentiv. Donets'k: Veber. Cherkasova, E. T. (1967). Perehod polnoznachnyh slov v predlogi. M.: Nauka.
Sheremet'eva, E. S. (2008). Otymennye reljativy sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Semantiko-sintaksicheskie jetjudy. Vladivostok: Izd-vo Dal'nevostochnogo un-ta.
Shiganova, G. A. (2001). Sistema leksicheskih i frazeologicheskih predlogov v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Dis. . dokt. filol. nauk. Cheljabinsk: Cheljabinskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogicheskij universitet.
Correspondence: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Gnna Sytar is Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor working for a doctoral degree at Department of Ukrainian Language and Applied Linguistics in Donetsk National University. Her research areas include functional linguistics, semantic syntax and applied linguistics.
Ekaterina Vinogradova is Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor at Department of Russian as Foreign Language for Humanities Students of Philology Faculty in Lomonosov Moscow State University. Her research areas include functional grammar, prepositional grammar, category of preposition, and teaching of Russian as a foreign language.
TO THE DEFINITION OF THE VERB : LINGUAL-COGNITOLOGICAL APPROACH
Department of Russian Language, Donetsk National University, Donetsk, Donetsk region, Ukraine
Available 20 August 2012.
Development of lingual-cognitological approach to various levels of language system that had been started by author in the monograph "Nominatheme: definition and description attempt" led, as it was expected, to the necessity of consideration of some grammatical essences as lingual world objectivization in speech structures. Up to this point all author's researches advanced in the mainstream of nominative units interpretation from this point of view. However, this approach will be incomplete if verb nominathemes are left overlooked. As it known the verb is regarded as the antithesis of the name in language system. Very interesting definition for this opposition was given by G.P. Pavsky in XVIIth century who believed the verb to be "a predominant word". He claimed that opposition of name and verb is based on opposition of "ideas representation" (verb) and "notions representation" (name). Basically this theory is not just possible - it distinctively enunciates the status of verb nominatheme in the language: in the system of semasiologically defined parts of speech the verb as gestalt denotation, as predicative center of the forming idea is opposed to the noun which specify object (complementary) and sometimes adverbial (prosecutive) actants of this gestalt. Still, despite of the fact that this opposition is obvious the question about principles of the verb detachment is complicated enough. There is no convincing description of that what serves as the basis for combination of the forms different by their nature into verb nominatheme. That is what forms the timeliness of the research.
To define general categorical semasiological semantics of the verb from the point of view of lingual cognitology, the science that interprets language structures as forms and producers of society lingual reality existence.
It is quite obvious there is a determination of the main tasks, namely:
1) definition of lingual concept position in language sign structure;
2) definition of lingual status of general categorical verbal semantics;
3) description of realization forms of verb gestalt semantics in its actant frame in speech. Conclusion
The author states that combination of verbal word forms to single nominatheme is performed on the basis of grammatical cognitive metaphor by which action and condition are interpreted as process in lingual world and by which lingual gestalt is formed. This formation arises as objectivization of verbal nominatheme actant frame in gloss-word-combination in speech. Complementary actants which actualize object frame of the verb and prosecutive actants which display its adverbial frame.
Suggested in the work approach to interpretation of general categorical semantics of the verb detaches it from deverbatives and participles. The last ones do not perform predicative function and they are not the basis of syntax gestalt. Such view is semasiological and syntactic by its nature as it objectifies the line "form - function - meaning". The opposite approach that is onomasiological and at the same time lexical-semantic will present absolutely different image of parts of speech in which we will be forced by the logic of word form semantic interpretation to treat all action notations as verbs: verbs themselves and participles and even deverbatives. Difference of their form will be regarded as only mimicry of onomasiological verb to its speech functions. Yet that is the subject for the following researches.
► Suggested article is devoted to integral semasiological definition of the verb general semantics from the point of view of lingual cognitology. ► The author considers that the basis for combination of various word forms into verb nominatheme is grammatical cognitive metaphor by which action and condition that relate to the similar language form are interpreted as process in lingual world. ► This metaphor is based on verb gestalt, which means that in sentence the verb denotes the situation interpreted by the language.
Keywords: gestalt, verb, cognitive metaphor, lingual concept, script, frame.
Belovol'skaja, L. A. (2001). Sintaksis slovosochetanija i prostogo predlozhenija (konspekty lekcij): uchebnoe posobie. Taganrog.
Vinogradov, V. V. (2001). Russkij jazyk: grammaticheskoe uchenie o slove. M.: Russkij jazyk. Kamynina, A. A. (1999). Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: morfologija. M.: Izd-vo MGU.
Kuznecov, S. A. (2001). O kategorii reprezentacii russkogo glagola. Issledovanija po slavjanskim jazykam, 6,
Kacnel'son, S. D. (1972). Tipologija jazyka i rechevoe myshlenie. L.: Nauka.
Krasavskij, N. A. (2006). Nemeckie invektivy: opyt lingvogenderologicheskogo opisanija. Konceptosfera i jazykovaja kartina mira, 21-26. Kemerovo: Kemerovskij poligraficheskij kombinat.
Russkaja grammatika (1980). Russkaja grammatika: v 2-h tomah, T. 1: fonetika, fonologija, udarenie, intonacija, slovoobrazovanie, morfologija. M.: Nauka.
Terkulov, V. I. (2010). Nominatema: opyt opredelenija i opisanija. Gorlovka: GGPIIJa, 2010.
Fillmor, Ch. (1981). Delo o padezhe. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike, Х, 369-495. M.
Correspondence: terkulov@rambler. ru Vitae
Vyacheslav I. Terkulov, Ph. D., Professor, Head of Department of Russian Language of Donetsk National University. Ranges of scientific interest are lingual cognitology, cultural linguistics, compositology, linguopoetics, and enclave dialectology.
COGNITIVE-PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF WORD-SYMBOLS THAT REPRESENT THE CONCEPT «WEALTH» IN THE FOLK DISCOURSE Anna Timonina
Department of English Philology, Mariupol State University, Mariupol, Donetsk region, Ukraine
Available 28 September 2012.
The end of XXth - be ginning of XXIth century is marked by a sharp increase in interest to cognitive linguistics. Research, devoted to the study of the relationship and interaction of language, consciousness and culture is currently experiencing a period of active peak. Cognitive approach to language learning let us look at the use of language not only as a reflection of man's inner world, but also at how we can know the external world through the mind. Cognitive research focuses on knowledge of universal experience, recorded in the cultural memory of the people and promotes understanding of the national mentality, its values and priorities. Author should note the growing interest of linguists to the study of language conceptualization of socio-cultural realities and socially labeled phenomena (V. Shaposhnikov, V. Shakhovskoi, O. Yakovleva, P. Voloshin, O. Yermakova) to which we include word-symbols. Language means representing the concept "wealth" endowed national characteristics that are most clearly revealed when comparing one language to other foreign languages, namely the allocation of the national component and determines the topicality of this article.
The aim of the article is the study of the content of the concept "wealth" in English, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian languages and determination of its universal and national-specific cognitive traits.
To achieve this goal it is necessary to select lexical units, representing the concept "wealth" in English, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian folk discourse, identifying features of verbal expression and interpretation of the concept "wealth" in the texts that are meaningful for English, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian cultural traditions.
The object of the study is the concept "wealth" in English, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian languages. Subject
The subject of the article is semantic and cognitive-pragmatic features of word-symbols that represent the concept «wealth» in the folk discourse. Methods
This article uses the method of continuous sampling. Sources of factual material
From the works of folk discourse, namely, folk tales, songs, proverbs and sayings author selected words that represent the cognitive features of the concept "wealth" in English, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian folk discourse. These words-symbols are the sources of the research.
Concept "wealth" belongs to the circle of linguistic-cultural concepts. Its analysis on the example of the English, Italian, Ukrainian and Russian languages allowed selecting a number of universal features that indicate the one hand,
the common cultural traditions, and on the other, the similarity in perception of reality by the residents of different countries. Parts of the concept "wealth" endowed national-specific and universal semantic components; it is when comparing frames in four different languages. Interpretation of the concept "wealth" in the folklore discourse that reflects the importance of its component values serves as a connecting link for the English, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian language awareness. Study of the functioning of frames in these languages proves that the same cognitive features of the concept "wealth" are duplicated in all the studied languages. Perspective
Prospects for further studies are seen in the study of semantic and cognitive-pragmatic features symbols that are inherent in the opposite concept "poverty" in terms of their functioning in folk discourse.
► The paper attempts to study the cognitive-pragmatic features of the concept «wealth». ► Theoretical grounds of the article are illustrated by the analysis of words-symbols, which function in the folk discourse. ► Cognitive structure of concept «wealth» is modeled and national specific features of the language representation of the researched concept are studied.
Keywords: concept sphere, frame, concept, cognitive analysis, word-symbol, folklore discourse, national identity.
Afanas'ev, A. N. (1984). Narodnye russkie skazki A. N. Afanas'eva: v 3 t., 1. M.: Nauka. Hembera, H. Ya. (1981). Oy verbo, verbo Ukrayins'ki narodni pisni. K.: Muzychna Ukrayina. Hordiychuk, M. (1991). Perlyny ukrayins'koyi narodnoyi pisni. K.: Muzychna Ukrayina. E-portal: http://nashe.com.ua/song.htm?id=12968
Dal', V. I. (2010). 1000 russkihposlovic ipogovorok. M.: RIPOL klassik.
Zhayvoronok, V. V. (2006). Znaky ukrayins'koyi etnokul'tury: Slovnyk-dovidnyk, 253-254. K.: Dovira. Karasik, V. I. (1998). O kategorijah diskursa. Volgograd.
Kubrjakova, E. S. & Dem'jankov, V. Z. & Pankrac, Ju. G. & Luzina, L. G. (1996). Kratkij slovar' kognitivnyh terminov. M.: MGU.
Pankeev, I. (1999). Narodnye pesni. M.: OLML-PRESS.
Ponomar'ov, A. (1993). Ukrayins'ka mynuvshyna: Ilyustrovanyy etnohrafichnyy dovidnyk, 132-134. K. Potapenko, O. I. & Dmytrenko, M. K. & Potapenko, H. I. (1997). Slovnyk symvoliv. K.: Redaktsiya chasopysu "Narodoznavstvo".
Rybnikova, V.A. (2001). Jazykovaja konceptualizacija sociuma: na materiale anglijskih didakticheskih tekstov. Dis. ... kand. filol. nauk. Krasnodar.
Bilodid, I. K. & Buryachok, A. A. & Vynnyk, V. O. (1970-1980). Slovnyk ukrayins'koyi movy. K.: Naukova dumka.
Sulimenko, N. E. (2007). Tekst i aspekty ego leksicheskogo analiza. SPb.: Izdatel'stvo Politehnicheskogo universiteta.
Calvino, I. (1971). Fiabe italiane, raccolte e trascritte da Italo Calvino. Einaudi, Torino. E-portal: http://tecalibri.altervista.org/C/CALVINO fiabe.htm
Folk Music. Folk Music of England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales & America: Songs of England. E-portal: http://www.contemplator.com/england/
Jacobs, J. (2005). English Fairy Tales. The Pennsylvania State University. E-portal: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/imanis/ioseph-iacobs/English-Fairy-Tales
Correspondence: email@example.com Vitae
Anna Y. Timonina, Post-Graduate Student of Mariupol State University (specialty - General Linguistics), Assistant Professor at Department of English Philology in Mariupol State University. Her ranges of interests are cognitive linguistics, semantics, and the study of folklore discourse.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS DENOTING NEGATIVE EMOTIONS IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN
Department of English Philology, Donetsk National University, Donetsk, Ukraine
Available 16 August 2012.
Modern linguistic studies reveal great interest of the researchers in the theoretical and practical issues of phraseology. Linguists are unanimous that phraseological units have intrinsic linguo-cultural relevance, as they expose
the peculiarities of the mentality characteristic of a linguistic community [Alefirenko 2008; Baranov, Dobrovol'skij 2008; Dobrovol'skij, Karaulov 1993; Krasavskij 2001; Selivanova 2004; Solodub 1990; Telia 1996 and others]. From the standpoint of cognitive linguistics and linguocultural studies it is relevant to determine the peculiarities of the structure of the phraseological units in different languages. In spite of the intensive research in the sphere of phraseology, some crucial theoretical tasks remain unsolved and open for discussion, such as the definition of the phraseological unit, its essential features, the principles of the structural classification. The specific nature of the phraseological unit meaning and structure makes the classification a complicated task. This results in the existence of different approaches to the structural classification of phraseological units [Amosova 1963; Vinogradov 1977; Zhukov, Zhukov 2006; Kunin 1996; Molotkov 1977; Smirnitskij 1998; Shanskij 1985 and others]. It explains the necessity to consider the structure of the phraseological units denoting negative emotions in the modern English and Ukrainian languages.
The purpose of the article is to determine and describe the structural types of the phraseological units denoting negative emotions in English and Ukrainian.
The purpose predetermines the necessity 1) to provide the structural classification of the phraseological units denoting negative emotions in English and Ukrainian and 2) to distinguish productive structural models.
The analysis makes it possible to distinguish three structural types of the phraseological units denoting negative emotions: with the structure of a word combination, a sentence and an interjection. The units with the structure of a word combination are more productive in English (80% of total units) than in Ukrainian (59%). Interjectional units (22% in Ukrainian and 15% in English) and those with the structure of a sentence (19% in Ukrainian and 5% in English) are more productive in the Ukrainian language. The most frequent type of the phraseological units in both languages is the verbal type.
Perspective of the research lies in the study of the functioning of the phraseological units in the text discourse. Research highlights
► The paper deals with the contrastive study of the structural types of the phraseological units denoting negative emotions in English and Ukrainian. ► The structural types are characterized, the productive structural models are determined.
Keywords: phraseological unit, structure, structural model. References
Avksentjev, L. G. (1987). Semantychna struktura frazeologichnyh odynyc suchasnoyi ukrains'koyi movy ta osoblyvosti ih formuvannya. Movoznavstvo, 1, 43-46.
Alefirenko, N. F. (2008). Kognitivno-sinergeticheskoje osveschenie prozessov neofrazeologizatsii. Moskva: Izd-
Alefirenko, N. F., Semenenko, N. N. (2009). Frazeologija i paremiologija. Moskva: Flinta: Nauka. Amosova, N. N. (1963). Osnovy anglijskoj frazeologii. Leningrad.
Arnold, I. V. (1986). Leksikologija sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka. Moskva: Vyssh. shk.
Baranov, A. N., & Dobrovol'skij, D. O. (2008). Aspekty teoriji frazeologiji. Moskva: Znak.