Synonymy of qualitative adverbs and prepositional phrases: Irregularity of paradigmatic relations

Abstract

Introduction. All forms of synonymy, including grammatical synonymy, provide language with flexibility and expressiveness. However, while paradigmatic relations manifest in some instances, in others such manifestations are blocked. This article aims to identify the reasons that prevent grammatical variability at the level of qualitative adverbs and prepositional phrases, both within the language system and in specific contexts.

Materials and Methods. The research corpus is based on the explanatory Russian Language Dictionary; the functional specifics of the selected units were described using contexts from the National Russian Corpus. The study employed methods of semantic, transformational, and contextual analysis.

Results. Qualitative adverbs can interact functionally with prepositional-case forms of several models (we examined about ten), including both relatively productive and relatively unproductive models. Irregularities in the paradigmatic relations between potential synonyms may stem from the absence in the language of an adverb or substantive included in the prepositional group, or from the rarity of the prepositional-case form in the adverbial function. Many prepositions allow noun forms to express the degree of a feature more precisely, to utilize inherent metaphors, or to encode causation explicitly. Such distinctions are reflected in the system of correspondences between corelates. However, in combination with specific predicates, some adverbs and prepositional phrases enter into synonymous relations, while others do not. This occurs during semantic transformations of the adverb, which, unlike its correlate, tends to express a general evaluation and the gradual features of a verbal action. Several adverbial lexemes differ from prepositional phrases based on ‘coreference–non-coreference’ (in some pairs, members are differentiated systematically by this parameter, while in others, this occurs only in combination with certain verbs), which also narrows the scope for paradigmatic interaction. The adverb, being more closely linked to the predicate, has less combinatorial freedom than prepositional-case forms, which are characterized by bidirectional semantic–syntactic relations (with both the subject and the predicate). Prepositional phrases are often modified by lexemes that lack equivalents in the adverbial sphere. In such cases, there is also no complete synonymy between correlates.

Conclusions. Studying semantically related units — whether belonging to different parts of speech or consisting of words and constructions — makes it possible to identify the categorical specificity of the research object. Furthermore, it helps characterize the pragmatic strategies of speakers who make varying communicative choices in different situations.