CC BY
15
Original Paper УДК 81'22
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-112-119
The case study of syntactic constructions differentiation of phraseological and non-phraseological type (on the Spanish language basis)
Anna V. Melikyan
Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0500-6482, Researcher ID: P-5834-2016; e-mail: [email protected]
Received: 12.07.2019 /Accepted: 29.07.2019 /Publishedonline: 25.09.2019
Abstract: The article is devoted to the problem of the Spanish syntactic constructions differentiation of phraseological and non-phraseological type, fixed phrase schemes in particular, which are the syntactic constructions that refer to the phraseological language subsystem. Here we define both the nature and the status of the fixed phrase schemes as linguistic units, as well as the scope and boundaries of these units' group in the contemporary Spanish language.
The fixed phrase scheme is a syntactic unit that represents the communicative function, possesses the stable construction scheme, expresses propositional (dictum and modus) meaning, and phraseosyntactic meaning (syntactic, intensifying and expressive semes). Its structure includes both the compulsory unchangeable and the compulsory changeable components. Syntactic phraseological units are characterized by such categorical features, as reproducibility, idiomaticity, structural and semantic stability, expressiveness that non-phraseological syntactic constructions do not possess.
The descriptive, transformational and analogous methods are used in the article as well as phraseographical portraying, and component, phraseological, etymological and discourse analysis. The fixed phrase scheme is an extremely effective tool of communicative interaction.
Keywords: syntactic phraseological unit; fixed phrase scheme; reproducibility; structural and semantic stability; idiomaticity; expressivity.
For citation: Melikyan A.V. The case study of syntactic constructions differentiation of phraseological and non-phraseological type (on the Spanish language basis). Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2019; 3: 112-119. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-112-119 (In Eng.).
Оригинальная статья
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-112-119
О разграничении синтаксических конструкций фразеологизированного и нефразеологизированного типа (на материале испанского языка)
А.В. Меликян
Южный федеральный университет г. Ростов-на-Дону, Российская Федерация ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0500-6482, Researcher ID: P-5834-2016; e-mail: [email protected]
Получена: 12.07.2019 /Принята: 29.07.2019 /Опубликована онлайн: 25.09.2019
Резюме: Статья посвящена проблеме дифференциации синтаксических конструкций испанского языка фразеологизированного и нефразеологизированного типа, в частности фразеосхем. Они представляют собой синтаксические конструкции, относящиеся к фразеологической подсистеме языка. В статье мы определяем природу и статус фразеосхем как единиц языка, а также обозначаем объем и границы данной группы языковых единиц в современном испанском языке.
Фразеосхема представляет собой синтаксические конструкции, выполняющие коммуникативную функцию, обладающие фиксированной схемой построений, выражающие диктумную и модусную пропозиции, а также фразеосинтаксическое значение (синтаксическая, интенсифицирующая и экспрессивная семы). В структуру данной конструкции входят обязательные неизменяемый и изменяемый компоненты. Данные синтаксические фразеологические единицы характеризуются набором категориальных признаков, таких как воспроизводимость, устойчивость, структурно-семантическая целостность, идио-матичность, экспрессивность, которые не имеют нефразеологизированные синтаксические построения.
Основными методами, используемыми в работе, являются описательный метод, основывающийся на наблюдении и сопоставлении, метод компонентного анализа семантической структуры предложения, трансформации, синтаксического моделирования, фразеографического портретирования, этимологического, контекстуального и филологического анализа, статистического подсчета, а также сопоставительный метод.
Фразеосхема является довольно эффективным средством коммуникативного взаимодействия.
Ключевые слова: синтаксическая фразеологическая единица; фразеосинтаксическая схема; воспроизводимость; структурно-семантическая целостность; идиоматичность; экспрессивность.
Для цитирования: Меликян А.В. О разграничении синтаксических конструкций фразеологизированного и нефразеологизированного типа (на материале испанского языка) // Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2019; 3: 112-119. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2019-3-112-119.
Introduction
The article is devoted to the problem of differentiating of Spanish syntactic constructions of phraseologized and non-phraseologized type, fixed phrase schemes in particular.
We view the syntactic phraseological constructions as the syntactic linguistic units which perform the communicative and aesthetic function, and possess such categorical features as reproducibility, structural and semantic stability and integrity, idiomaticity, expressiveness and are characterized by the specificity of the relations between their components [6, p. 14].
Fixed phrase schemes are one of the brightest examples of syntactic phraseological units. They are communicative predicative syntactic units that represent the defining and reproducible restricted syntactic scheme and are characterized by dictum and modus proposition; they express judgements, possess grammatical and lexical partial indivisibility, impenetrability, non-expandability and perform the aesthetic function in speech [11, p. 161-162; 12; 9].
The aim of the article
This article is aimed to solve the problem of the phraseologized and non-phraseologized syntactic constructions delimitation and revealing its differentiating criteria.
A review of the literature
Some linguists think that these syntactic constructions are formed on the definite phraseologized model and, as a result, they obtain idiomaticity of structure and semantics. In such sentences the constant components lose their categorical meaning and, consequently, sentences are subjected to phraseologization from the point of view of structure and semantics. Though initially these constructions are formed according to the existing current norms, in evaluative meaning they are always built from the definite phraseologized models.
The syntactic scheme of such constructions is always composite and includes two types of compulsory components: unchangeable (supporting) and changeable (morphologically stable but lexically variable one). In such syntactic constructions some members are the main ones, structurally supporting, constant and obligatory; and others are variable, the whole construction is built from the unchangeable or partially changeable structural and syntactic formula [18, p. 110].
The compulsory unchangeable component is «the set form, out of touch with the paradigm of the corresponding word and, to a greater or lesser degree, lost its lexical and categorical meanings» [19, p. 94]. Thus, «the meanings of compulsory words are removed» [21, p. 134]. They are reimagined words and word-combi-
nations; that contributes to the partial grammatical, lexical and semantic indivisibility, idiomaticity and integrity of such utterances. The rethinking of compulsory components' meaning in the structure of a fixed phrase scheme and diverse lexical content takes place, and «phraseological character» of the meaning is common for all concrete constructions, built from the given model [21, p. 134-136], for example: Este caballero y mi amigo
Izquierdo se tenían muy mala voluntad...... ¡Lo que allí es dijeron!......Era cosa de alquilar balcones. [30,
p.46]. ("They said a lot to each other + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, surprise, disapproval, negative attitude to the speech subject"). So, despite their indivisibility, «these sentences are strictly structured both in form and in meaning » [5, p. 181].
The compulsory changeable components are the words or word-combinations that can vary to this or that degree, for example, they can be represented by a noun or a verb in the Infinitive form or the indicative mood: 1) Úrsula lloraba en la mesa como si estuviera leyendo las cartas que nunca llegaron, en las cuales relataba José Arcadio sus hazañas y desventuras. «Y tanta casa aquí, hijo mío - sollozaba. - ¡Y tanta comida tirada a los puercos». [26, p. 39]. ("We throw away much food to pigs + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, disapproval, regret, negative attitude to the speech subject, etc."); 2) Fue un buen orador. Tantos querían oirlo! /From the colloquial speech/ (translated by A. Melikyan).
("Many people wanted to listen to him + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, admiration, approval, positive attitude to the speech subject").
The presence of compulsory unchangeable and changeable components in the fixed phrase scheme structure allows classifying its meaning as «syntactic», and the models themselves as «lexical-syntactic ones».
As a rule, such utterances are derived and for this reason motivated. However, the creation of their semantic content does not occur on the basis of metaphorical reinterpretation but by its generalization: some definite meaning can be attached to it («affirmative», «negative», «evaluative», «imperative»), as well as the transformation of the productive base meaning into the opposite one takes place (conversion), that determined the lack of picturesqueness: - ¡Buen par de tutelas! El día menos pensado cerramos el ojo, y te hallarás sola como el espárrago [25, p. 55]. ("There isn't any sense in such trustees + indignation, disapproval, negative attitude to the speech subject, etc.").
The specificity of fixed phrase schemes also consists in the fact that the emotional-evaluative meaning of such utterances is not produced by particular lexical components, that form the construction but by the whole syntactic construction. Taking the compulsory components out of the fixed phrase scheme structure destroys the grammatical construction of the sentence completely and also changes its meaning utterly. The integrity violation of such constructions is only possible within limits and it is due to the presence of an optional component in their structure.
As the syntactic level is not a level of elements but relations, the syntactic meaning is defined by typed of relations between elements, i.e. by the form type of the syntactic construction. The form meaning is not strictly recognized by the communicants and it is of subconscious character [3, p. 56].
Methodology
The common philosophic methodological level of the present research is based on dialectical laws of form and content unity, universal connection of phenomena, unity and conflict of opposites and others.
The common scientific methodological research foundations relate to the theory of general phraseology, to the ideas of such linguists as V.L. Arkhangelskiy [1], V.I. Kodukhov [4], L.I. Royzenzon [18], N.Yu Shvedova [20], D.N. Shmelev [21], N.A. Yanko-Trinitskaya [22], and others.
Particular methodological principles of the study are based on the works by E.L. Vilinbahova, M.V. Ko-potev [2], A.V. Melikyan [7], V.Y. Melikyan [8; 9; 11; 10], O.V. Akbaeva [13], VY. Melikyan, A.V. Melikyan [14], V.Y. Melikyan, A.V. Melikyan, V.V. Posidelova [15], V.Y. Melikyan, A.V Melikyan, A.I. Dzubenko [27], V.Y. Melikyan, A.D. Melnik [28], A. Nikunlassi [16], L.A. Piotrovskaya [17], written within the framework of syntactic phraseology theory.
The following methods are used in the article: the descriptive method based on observation and contrast, the transformational method, the syntactic simulation method, the methods of component analysis of a sentence's semantic structure, the methods of etymological, phraseological and discourse analysis alongside with the phraseographical portraying method.
Results and discussion
The article contains the analysis of the syntactic constructions of the phraseologized and non-phraseolo-gized types as well as revealing of their differentiating criteria. For that purpose we compare two syntactic constructions with the structural elements tanto and harto.
The syntactic construction; <Entre [con, ...]> Tanto(-a, -os, -as) + N[Vind, inf]! is a phraseologized one (fixed phrase scheme), while the construction with the component harto does not have any phraseologization features.
So the fixed phrase scheme can only express one meaning « the high degree of speech subject manifestation in combination with different emotional and expressive shades of meaning», for example: 1) Tuvo que agarrarse del quicio para que no la derribara la pestilencia, pero no le hicieron falta más de dos segundos para recordar que ahí estaban guardadas las setenta y dos bacinillas de las colegialas, y que en una de las primeras noches de lluvia una patrulla de soldados había registrado la casa buscando a José Arcadio Segundo y no habían podido encontrarlo. - ¡Bendito sea Dias! - exclamó, como si lo hubiera visto todo. - Tanto tartar de inculcarte las buenas costumbres, para que terminaras viviendo como un puerco. [26, p. 138]. ("I spent such labour + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, indignation, disapproval, negative attitude to the speech subject"). This emotional and evaluative meaning is not peculiar to the separate lexical components but to the whole syntactic construction.
The compulsory unchangeable component in the structure of the fixed phrase scheme is represented by a word tanto, which has the following meaning in the system of the Spanish language: «very many; so much, so many, very, so long» [23]. The meaning of the compulsory component in the structure of the fixed phrase scheme is only partially obsolete, for example: Me cuidé de no apartar la vista de mi propia mesa durante lo que restaba de la hora del almuerzo. Decidí respetar el pacto que había alcanzado conmigo misma. Asistiría a clase de Biología, ya que no parecía enfadado. Tanto me aterraba volver a sentarme a su lado que tuve unos leves retortijones de estómago. [29, p. 23]. ("I was afraid + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, resentment, etc.").
The compulsory unchangeable component can be used separately or with the combination of different prefixed prepositions, it determines its paradigmatic qualities of the syntactic type. Compare: ;Con tanta difi-cutad volvía aquí! or ¡Entre tantos libros no hay nada interesante! /From the colloquial speech/ (translated by A. Melikyan).
The compulsory component tanto has the morphological paradigm that makes it possible to vary the grammatical meaning of gender and number (tanto - tanta - tantos - tantas): 1) Pues bien, mi señor don Augusto, pacto cerrado. Usted me parece un excelente sujeto, bien educado, de buena familia, con una renta más que regular... Nada, nada, desde hoy es usted mi candidato. - Tanto honor, señora... - Sí; hay que hacer entrar en razón a esta mozuela. Ella no es mala, sabe usted, pero caprichosa... Luego, ¡fue criada con tanto mimo!... [32, p. 16]. ("Great privilege + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, irony, etc."); 2) «Lo que sobran son mujeres. ¡Y qué encanto la inocencia maliciosa, la malicia inocente de Rosarito, esta nueva edición de la eterna Eva!, ¡qué encanto de chiquilla! Ella, Eugenia, me ha bajado del abstracto al concreto, pero ella me llevó al genérico, y hay tantas mujeres apetitosas, tantas... ¡tantas Eugenias!, ¡tantas Rosarios! No, no, conmigo no juega nadie, y menos una mujer. ¡Yo soy yo! [32, p. 40]. ("Many Eugenias, many Rosarios + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, disdain, disapproval, etc.").
Let us analyse the syntactic construction with the component Harto: - Pero si la pobrecita apenas levanta la voz..., si ni se la siente andar por la casa... Parece como que tuviera vergüenza hasta de presentarse... - Sí, sí, es así... Harto he hecho por infundirle valor, pero en no estando arrimada a mí, cosida a mi falda, la pobrecita se encuentra como perdida. ¡Claro, como criada con biberón! [33, p. 37].
The word harto forming part of the given construction has the following meaning in the system of the Spanish language: «fed up, full, full up, extremely, very» [23], for example: Tenían muy semejantes las facciones, con el rostro agitanado y el pelo y las barbas negras y tupidas en torno a unas narices gallardas, semíticas, que delataban a la legua a unos bisabuelos todavía reacios a comer tocino: cuestión que a sus camaradas dábaseles un ardite, pues en asuntos de limpieza de sangre nunca entraron los tercios, al considerar que quien la vertía peleando, harto hidalga y limpia la tenía. [31, p. 59]. The meaning of the component in this syntactic structure is not obsolete because it is used in the direct meaning and can be replaced with any other word with similar meaning. And the sentence itself does not suffer any significant changes in semantics: Harto hidalga y limpia la tenía. Mucho hidalga y limpia la tenía. Sumamente hidalga y limpia la tenía.
The syntactic relations between the structural components of the fixed phrase scheme with the compulsory component tanto are obsolete that is why their word-order is unchanged. The phraseological specificity of the sentence limits its extension to a great degree. The word-order of the components in the sentence with the word harto can be changed within the scope of grammar, for example: 1) ... Pero oiga usted, señor mío, por mucho
que usted sepa y diga lo que quiera el señor Todd, ni la ciencia, ni santa ciencia, tienen derecho para calumniar a don Santos Barinaga; harto tiene el pobre con morirse de hambre y de disgustos... [24, p. 300]. 2) El pobre tiene harto con morirse de hambre y de disgustos... [23].
The most significant feature that let us classify the syntactic construction as the phraseologized one is the idiomaticity feature.
The idiomaticity characteristic is the underivability of common fixed phrase scheme meaning from the components' meaning included in its structure. For instance: Estaba ya de espaldas al muro y tenía las manos apoyadas en la cintura porque los nudos ardientes de las axilas le impedían bajar los brazos. "Tanto joderse uno", murmuraba el coronel Aureliano Buendía. "Tanto joderse para que lo maten a uno seis maricas sin poder hacer nada". Lo repetía con tanta rabia, que casi parece fervor, y el capitán Roque Carcinero se conmovió porque creyó que estaba rezando. [26, p. 55]. ("I suffered + the high degree of speech subject manifestation, indignation, disappointment, regret, nuisance, resentment, negative attitude to the speech subject, etc.").
The idiomaticity feature has several aspects of occurrence. Firstly, the fixed phrase scheme meaning according to purpose is not derivable, because the fixed phrase scheme is a simple affirmative sentence in form, but more often it fulfils a function of an exclamatory sentence.
Secondly, this utterance contains rather extensive modus proposition that includes the meaning of «the high degree of speech subject manifestation» in its structure, as well as diverse emotional semes referred to expressing the negative attitude of the speaker to the speech subject and to the addressee: «indignation, disdain, regret, disappointment, resentment, etc.». Formally the presence of modus proposition is not represented in the structure of the analyzed fixed phrase scheme.
The styleme that is the colloquial markedness of the fixed phrase scheme is also derivable. The sentence in its direct (productive) meaning refer to the neutral style, in the secondary (derived) meaning it acquires colloquial colouring. However, it does not suffer any changes in form.
Conclusion
Thus, in the contemporary Spanish language there are syntactic constructions that have similar structure, but they differ in their linguistic nature and status. One of them (with the component tanto) is a fixed syntactic model (fixed phrase scheme), it includes the compulsory unchangeable and changeable components in its structure, expresses dictum and modus proposition, and is characterized by such features as reproducibility, structural and semantic stability and integrity, idiomaticity, and expressivity. Another construction (with the component harto) is non-phraseologized one, because does not possess the inherent categorical features of the fixed phrase scheme and it is characterized by the symmetry of the signifying and the signified.
Список литературы
1. Архангельский В.Л. Устойчивые фразы в современном русском языке. Основы теории устойчивых фраз и проблемы общей фразеологии. Ростов н/Д: Изд-во Ростовского ин-та, 1964. 315 c.
2. Вилинбахова Е.Л., КопотевМ.В. «Х есть Х» значит «Х это Х»? ищем ответ в синхронии и диахронии // Вопросы языкознания. 2017. №3. С. 110-124.
3. Журавлев А.П. Содержательность синтаксической формы (Синтаксический символизм) // Вопросы языкознания. 1987. №3. С. 46-57.
4. Кодухов В.И. Синтаксическая фразеологизация // Проблемы фразеологии и задачи ее изучения в высшей и средней школе. Вологда: Северо-западное книжное изд-во, 1967. С. 123-137.
5. Малинович Ю.М. Экспрессия и смысл предложения: Проблемы экспрессивного синтаксиса. Иркутск: Изд-во Иркут. ун-та, 1989. 213 с.
6. Меликян А.В. Системный и функциональный аспекты интерпретации фразеосинтаксических схем с опорным компонентом - вопросительным словом: автореф. дис. канд. филол. наук / Южный федеральный университет. Ростов-на-Дону, 2007. 20 с.
7. Меликян А.В. Фразеосхемы с опорным компонентом-союзом в современном испанском языке // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2016. № 5 (43). С. 59-70. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/43/5.
8. Меликян В.Ю. Основы теории синтаксической фразеологии (на материале русского и английского языков): монография. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co, 2011. 376 с.
9. Меликян В.Ю. Синтаксическая фразеология русского языка [Электронный ресурс]: учебное пособие для магистрантов, аспирантов и докторантов. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2013. 351 с.
10. Меликян В.Ю. Синтаксические фразеологические единицы: фразеосинтаксические схемы: монография. Ростов-на-Дону: Изд-во ДОНИЗДАТ, 2019. 268 с.
11. Меликян В.Ю. Словарь экспрессивных устойчивых фраз: фразеосхемы и устойчивые модели. Изд. 3-е. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2017. 336 с.
12. Меликян В.Ю. Современный русский язык. Синтаксическая фразеология: учебное пособие для студентов. Изд. 3-е. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2017. 232 с.
13. Меликян В.Ю., Акбаева О.В. Фразеосинтаксические схемы с опорным компонентом-неполнозна-менательным словом в современном русском языке // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2017. №47. С. 57-71. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/47/4.
14. Меликян В.Ю., Меликян А.В. Феномен синтаксической семиоимпликации // Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Slowianskiej. 2018. Вып. 53. С. 348-368. DOI: 10.11649/sfps.2018.021.
15. Меликян В.Ю., Меликян А.В., Посиделова В.В. Classification of English fixed phrase schemes according to phraseological hierarchy // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2018. № 2. С. 145-151. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2018-2-145-151.
16. Никунласси Ахти. Синтаксис фокусной частицы только и // Вопросы языкознания. 2019. №2. С. 7-30.
17. Пиотровская Л.А. К вопросу о синтаксической фразеологии // Славистический сборник. СПб.: Изд-во СПб. ун-та, 1998. С. 111-118.
18. Ройзензон Л.И. Фразеологизация как лингвистическое явление // Тр. Самарканд. гос. ун-та. Новая серия. Самарканд, 1961. №113. С. 46-73.
19. Шведова Н.Ю. О некоторых типах фразеологизированных конструкций в строе русской разговорной речи // Вопросы языкознания. 1958. №2. С. 93-100.
20. Шведова Н.Ю. Очерки по синтаксису русской разговорной речи. М.: Изд-во Академии наук СССР, 1960. 378 с.
21. Шмелев Д.Н. Синтаксическая членимость высказывания в современном русском языке. М.: Наука, 1976. 150 с.
22. Янко-Триницкая Н.А. Синтаксические фразеологизмы с лексическими повторами // Русский язык в школе. 1967. №2. С. 87-92.
23. https://ru.pons.com (accessed at 15 June 2019).
24. Alas L. «Clarín». La Regenta. Ediciones Grupo Anaya. 2009. 160 p. (In Span.).
25. Caballero F. Clemencia. BiblioBazaar. 2009. 296 p.
26. Márquez G.G. Cien años de soledad. Ediciones Cátedra. 2012. 560 p.
27. Melikyan V.Y., Melikyan A.V., Dzubenko A.I. Syntactic phraseological units. Syntactic phraseology. Phraseological subsystem of language // Zeitschrift fur Slawistik. 2017. № 1. Pp. 23-47. DOI: 10.1515/slaw-2017-0002.
28. Melikyan V.Y., MelnikA.D. The fixed phrase scheme «Wie + AF (?)!» in the system of German: structural, semantic, etymological and phraseological aspects // 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2018, www.sgemsocial.org, SGEM2018 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-58-4 / ISSN 2367-5659, 26 August - 1 September, 2018, Vol. 5, issue 3.6. Pp. 593-600.
29. Meyer S. Crepúsculo. Tintero Publishing. 2009. 254 p.
30. Pérez Galdós B. Fortunata y Jasinto: Dos historias de casadas. Ediciones ELI (Recanati). 2015. 127 p.
31. Pérez-Reverte A. El sol de Breda. Ediciones Debolsillo. 2016. 256 p.
32. Unamuno M. de. La niebla. Kapo Publishing. 2014. 316 p.
33. UnamunoM. de. La tía Tula. Ediciones Cátedra. 2002. 191 p.
References
1. Arkhangelsky, V.L. (1964). Set-phrases in the contemporary Russian language. Fundamentals of set-phrases theory and problems of common linguistics, Rostov-on-Don: Rostov University Publishing, 315 p. (In Russ.).
2. Vilinbahova, E.L., Kopotev, M.V. (2017). Does «Х is Х» mean «Х is Х»? we are looking for the answer in synchrony and diachrony: Problems of language theory, no 3, pp. 110-124 (In Russ.).
3. Zhuravlev, A.P. (1987). Meaningfulness of syntactic form (Syntactic symbolism): Problems of language theory, no 3, pp. 46-57 (In Russ.).
4. Kodukhov, V.I. (1967). Syntactic phraseologization: Problems of phraseology and objects of its research in secondary and high school, Vologda: North-East book house, pp. 123-137 (In Russ.).
5. Malinovich, Y.M. (1989). Expression and meaning of the sentence: the problem of expressive syntax, Irkutsk: Irkut. University, 213 p. (In Russ.).
6. Melikyan, A.V. (2007). System and functional aspects of the interpretation of fixed phrase schemes with the basic component - question word: Katege. Dees. Cand. PhD. Sciences / Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, 20 p. (In Russ.).
7.Melikyan,A.V. (2016). Fixed phrase schemes with the basic component-conjunction in the modern Spanish language. Tomsk State University. Philology, no 5 (43), pp. 59-70. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/43/5 (In Russ.).
8. Melikyan, V.Y. (2011). Fundamentals of the syntactic phraseology theory (in the Russian and English languages): monograph. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co, 376 p. (In Russ.)
9. Melikyan, V.Y. (2013). Syntax phraseology of the Russian language [Electronic resource]: textbook for undergraduates, postgraduates and doctoral students, Moscow: Flint: Science, 351 p. (In Russ.).
10. Melikyan, V.Y. (2017). Dictionary of expressive phrases: fixed phrase schemes and sustainable model, ed. 3-e, Moscow: Flint: Science, 336 p. (In Russ.).
11. Melikyan, V.Y. (2017). The modern Russian Language. Syntax phraseology. Tutorial for students, ed. 3-e, Moscow: Flint: Science, 232 p. (In Russ.).
12. Melikyan, V.Y. (2019). Syntactic phraseological units: fixed phrase schemes, monograph, Rostov-on-Don: DONIZDAT, 268 p. (In Russ.).
13. Melikyan, V.Y., Akbaeva, O.V. (2017). Fixed phrase schemes with the basic component-syncate-gorematic word in modern Russian Language. Tomsk State University. Philology, no 47, pp. 57-71. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/47/4 (In Russ.).
14. Melikyan, V.Y.,Melikyan,A.V. (2018). The phenomenon of syntactic semioimplication: Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Slowianskiej, no 53, pp. 348-368. DOI: 10.11649/sfps.2018.021 (In Russ.).
15. Melikyan, V.Y., Melikyan, A.V., Posidelova, V.V. (2018). Classification of English fixed phrase schemes according to phraseological hierarchy: Problems of cognitive linguistics, no 2, pp. 145-151. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2018-2-145-151.
16. Nikunlassi, A. (2019). The syntax of focus particles only and: Questions of Linguistics, no 2, pp. 7-30 (In Russ.).
17. Piotrovsky, L.A. (1998). To the matter of syntax lexicon. Slavonic collection, SPb.: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, pp. 111-118 (In Russ.).
18. Rojzenzon, L.I. (1961). Phraseologization as a linguistic phenomenon: works Samarkand state University. The new series, Samarkand, no 113, pp. 46-73 (In Russ.).
19. Shvedova, N.J. (1958). On certain types of phraseologized structures in the system of Russian speaking: Questions of Linguistics, no 2, pp. 93-100 (In Russ.).
20. Shvedova, N.J. (1960). Essay on syntax of Russian colloquial speech, Moscow: Publishing house of USSR, 378 p. (In Russ.).
21. Shmeljov, D.N. (1976). Syntactically associated design-fixed phrase scheme. Syntactic divisibility statements in the modern Russian Language, Moscow: Science, 152 p. (In Russ.).
22. Yanko-Trinitskaya, N.A. (1967). Syntactic phraseological units with lexical repeats: Russian language at school, no 2, pp. 87-92 (In Russ.).
23. https://ru.pons.com (accessed at 15 June 2019). (In Eng.).
24. Alas, L. «Clarín» (2009). La Regenta. Ediciones Grupo Anaya. 160 p. (In Span.).
25. Caballero, F. (2009). Clemencia. BiblioBazaar, 296 p. (In Span.).
26. Márquez, G.G. (2012). Cien años de soledad. Ediciones Cátedra, 560 p. (In Span.).
27. Melikyan, V.Y., Melikyan, A.V., Dzubenko, A.I. (2017). Syntactic phraseological units. Syntactic phraseology. Phraseological subsystem of language: Zeitschrift fur Slawistik, no 1, pp. 23-47. DOI 10.1515/slaw-2017-0002 (In Eng.).
28. Melikyan, V.Y., Melnik, А.D. (2018). The fixed phrase scheme «Wie + AF(?)!» in the system of German: structural, semantic, etymological and phraseological aspects: 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2018, www.sgemsocial.org, SGEM2018 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-58-4 / ISSN 2367-5659, 26 August - 1 September, vol. 5, issue 3.6, pp. 593-600 (In Eng.).
29. Meyer, S. (2009). Crepúsculo. Tintero Publishing, 254 p. (In Span.).
30. Pérez, G.B. (2015). Fortunata y Jasinto: Dos historias de casadas. Ediciones ELI (Recanati), 127 p. (In Span.).
31. Pérez-Reverte A. (2016). El sol de Breda. Ediciones Debolsillo, 256 p. (In Span.).
32. Unamuno, M. de. (2014). La niebla. Kapo Publishing, 316 p. (In Span.).
33. Unamuno, M. de. (2002). La tía Tula. Ediciones Cátedra, 191 p. (In Span.).
Меликян Анна Васильевна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры межкультурной коммуникации и методики преподавания иностранных языков, Южный федеральный университет, кафедра межкультурной коммуникации и методики преподавания иностранных языков Института филологии, журналистики и межкультурной коммуникации; 344006, ул. Б. Садовая, 105/42, г. Ростов-на-Дону, Российская Федерация; e-mail: [email protected]
Anna V. Melikyan, Candidate of Philology, Associate professor of Intercultural Communication and Teaching Methods Department, Southern Federal University, Intercultural Communication and Teaching Methods Department, Institute of Philology, Journalism and Intercultural Communication, Associate professor; 344006, 105/42 B. Sadovaya Str., Rostov-on-Don, Russia; e-mail: [email protected]
