Predicative Prepositions: Syntax-Semantics Interplay in

Combinations

Gulnoz A. Ergasheva

, Maxfurat K. Omonova

and Saidova Dilfuza Ergashovna

Karshi State University, Karshi, Uzbekistan

Keywords: Syntactic-Semantic Feature, Predicative, Syntaxeme Analysis, Transformation, Deep Structure.

Abstract: This article explores the inherent structure of predicatively positioned prepositional combinations, each

exhibiting unique syntactic-semantic features. It conceptualizes a syntaxeme as an unchanging syntactic unit

expressed in a language through a range of interconnected options, constituting an equivalent paradigmatic

series. In their predicative role, prepositional combinations function as tools for articulating a diverse array

of syntaxemes outlined by a system of variants discerned through linguistic experimentation methods. This

exploration sheds light on the intricate relationships between prepositions and their subsequent combinations

within the realm of syntax, offering insights into the mechanisms underlying linguistic expression. The

analysis involves a comprehensive examination of the syntactic-semantic nuances inherent in various

prepositional combinations, revealing how they contribute to the construction of syntaxemes. Through this

investigation, a deeper understanding of the syntactic structure and semantic implications of prepositional

combinations positioned predicatively is achieved, enriching our comprehension of language dynamics.

1 INTRODUCTION

The task of syntaxemic analysis is to study the

underlying structure of a sentence, i.e., its content. The

main purpose of most sections of language science is

directly or indirectly the study of the content plan. At

the same time, the inner side of language is analyzed,

as a rule, not in isolation but in unity with the material

form of its expression, i.e., together with the outer side

of language. So, the science of the plan of language

content is called semantics (translated from Greek

means "denoting"). The emergence of semantics as a

science is connected with the name of the French

scientist M. Breal. Semantics is also called the science

of meaning, but the concept of semantics is broader

than the concept of meaning. The study of the deep

structure of sentences implies the identification of

syntaxemes in sentence combinations in the position of

the predicative, i.e., in the position of the nuclear

predicative component. Syntaxemes are characterized

by differential syntactic-semantic features, defined by

given syntactic relations.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 1: Exploring Syntaxemes: Cross-Cultural Views on Syntactic Structures.

Author Name (Year)

Study

I. I. Meshchaninov (1940)

In Meshchaninov's view, syntaxemes refer to the word formations that dictate the syntactic order,

revealing the semantics of the sentence.

I. F. Vardul (1964)

Vardul employs "syntaxeme" to denote the primary syntactic unit in Japanese, distinct from Russian

syntax units. He defines it as a denominative word with adjacent service words.

A. A. Pashkovsky (1980)

Pashkovsky, focusing on the Japanese language, defines syntaxeme as a suffixal component of a sentence

member. It's characterized by non-self-sufficiency, postpositionality, inalterability, and the ability to

express relations.

G. A. Zolotova (1988)

Zolotova derives the notion of syntaxeme from the analysis of Russian case forms. It's defined as a

minimal semantic-syntactic unit exclusive to Russian, carrying elementary meaning and functioning in

complex syntactic constructions.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8267-5527

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8298-0262

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2885-277X

238

Ergasheva, G., Omonova, M. and Ergashovna, S.

Predicative Prepositions: Syntax-Semantics Interplay in Combinations.

DOI: 10.5220/0012795600003882

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 2nd Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies (PAMIR-2 2023), pages 238-242

ISBN: 978-989-758-723-8

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study defines a syntaxeme as an invariant

syntactic unit represented in a language through a

system of variants, forming an equivalent

paradigmatic series. Three distinct syntaxeme

categories exist: substantive, denoting object

features; procedural, denoting actions; and

qualitative, denoting properties. In prepositional

combinations in the predicative position, substantial

syntaxemes dominate, except when expressed

through adverbs or action-indicating words.

Syntaxemic analysis distinguishes syntaxemes using

three main approaches: means of expression,

syntactic content of elementary units, and syntactic

position, employing all three to establish various

syntactic-semantic features.

Prepositional combinations in the predicative

position serve as a means of expressing diverse

syntaxemes, possessing features such as locativity,

stativity, activity, temporality, objectivity, sociality,

origin, and purpose. Additionally, they share the

common syntactic-semantic feature of substantivity.

The substantivity sign in these syntaxemes is

identified through determinatives, including personal

pronouns, indicative pronouns, articles, numerals,

adjectives, and nouns in the possessive case.

Identification of syntaxemes with different syntactic-

semantic features relies on linguistic experiments

involving transformations specific to the nature of the

revealed feature, such as locative absolute, stative, or

active transformations.

4 ANALYSIS

Each syntaxeme expressed by a prepositional phrase

in the predicative position has its system of variants.

However, the number of variants of syntaxemes is not

equal; some have more variants, others have less, and

some have only one single variant at all. Thus, the

largest number of variants is possessed by the locative

absolute syntaxeme, and the social syntaxeme has

only one variant - with S.

The social syntaxeme represents the meaning of a

certain aggregate, jointness. The only means of

expressing the social syntaxeme is the preposition

with. ("The preposition with is a means of expressing

the attitude of associative or social connection"

Reiman E.A. 1982 p.41).

Let us consider several examples that have the

attribute of sociability:

1. I was with these guys in Austin (J.F.M.113)

→ With whom was I in Austin?

2. Louis was with Eileen in the church parlor

(J.F.M.565) → With whom was Louis in the

church parlor?

3. At this moment our thoughts and prayers

should be with the families of the victims of

this terrible crime. (D.N.1) → With whom

should our thoughts and prayers be at this

moment?

The social syntaxeme expressed by the

prepositional combination in the predicative position

is realized based on a noun or pronoun denoting only

animate objects (guys, Eileen, families, you, etc.).

Thus, the social syntaxeme expressed by the

prepositional combination in the predicative position

is represented by the variant to be with S.

Prepositional combinations in the predicative

position most often express the locative syntaxeme

which is determined by the substitution of its variants

and the method of posing the question -Where?

The locative absolute syntaxeme is defined using

the variants near, in front of, at, in (He's at the pool.

/They were in front of door./I'll be in the city in the

evening.); locative ablative - from, out of (The Nazi

commandant of the camp was from my home-town./

That noise was out of the darkness.); locative illative

- within, inside (The best place to bury a good is

within your heart./ a splinter was still inside him);

locative temporal - during, at (against which we were

at war./ It was during the process when). The lexical

base of the locative syntaxeme can be nouns denoting

concrete objects, names of cities, villages, mountains,

rivers, body parts, spatial phenomena, and living

beings.

The most used syntaxeme expressed by the

prepositional combination in the predicative position

is the stative syntaxeme. The feature of stativity is

revealed by the prepositional group in a state of. For

example:

1. Jesus was in absolute safety. (C.M.nov.10-

16. 95. p17) → Lesus was in a state of safety.

2. They're in a temporary crisis. (C.M.m. 96.

p58) → They're in a state of temporary

crises.

However, it is not possible to use this

prepositional group in all cases. In the research work

of S. Egamberdiev, we can see the identification of

stative syntaxemes by replacing prepositional

combinations with Participle II.

1. She was in remission. (R.D.apr. 91.p42) →

She was remitted.

2. But the sheets were in disarray.(R.D.apr.

91.p74). → But the sheets were disarrayed.

Predicative Prepositions: Syntax-Semantics Interplay in Combinations

239

The stative syntaxeme is expressed both by the

verb be and by other verbs such as come, stand,

remain, appear and others, which act as linking verbs.

1. The Iraqi treat remains at bay.

2. The section stood at ease.

The stative syntaxeme, unlike the active

syntaxeme, can be combined with an adverb and an

adjective.

Another syntactic-semantic feature is the feature

of activity. The active syntaxeme is combined with

words indicating the speed of action (rapid, quick,

slow) and is determined by passivation. For example:

1. As soon as we got money our work was in

quick progress. → As soon as we got money

our work was quickly progressed.

2. From Brazil to New Zealand, a drive is on to

rapidly boost the quality of screen-writing.

→From Brazil to New Zealand, a drive is

rapidly boosted the quality of screen-

writing.

The temporal syntaxeme revealed in prepositional

combinations in the predicative position is

determined by means of the question-when? and the

replacement of the word then. For example:

1. This bullish was in October 1987. → When

was this bullish? -This bullish was then.

2. And it was on Monday afternoon. → When

it was? - It was then.

Along with the temporal syntaxeme there is a

temporal locative syntaxeme defined by replacing the

prepositional combination with the words there, here.

For example:

1. That's all in the past. →That's all there.

2. The twenty-first century is almost upon us.

→The twenty-first century is here.

Genitive syntaxeme or syntaxeme of origin

expressed by a prepositional phrase in the predicative

position is revealed by the variants from S, out of S.

For example:

1. Those words are from the book Science and

Health with Key to the Scriptures.

2. We're out of Harvard Geophysics.

According to some dictionaries, the following

prepositions are the means of expressing the genitive

syntaxeme: from (BARS, I:557; Hornby, I:346),

through (BARS, II:626), out of (BARS, II:146;

Hornby, II:91), by (BARS, I:204), on (BARS, II:

128), off (BARS, II:122). But in our studies, the

means of expressing the genitive syntaxeme in the

predicative position is the preposition out of and with

great advantage the preposition from. Thus in the

examples:

1. The roses are from Richard. (B.T.Gr.275)

2. His vision comes from his political hero

Konrad Adenaver, the first chancellor of

postwar Germany. (N.nov.4.96. p.4)

3. This was just from our class. (J.F.M.199)

it is impossible to replace the preposition from

with other variants of the genetive syntaxeme.

Let's try to replace the variant from S with another

variant of this syntaxeme – by S:

1. The sappy tale is from the pen of Anita

Leung Fung-yee (N.p.48) → The sappy tale

is by the pen of Anita Leung Fung-yee.

2. The third western account came from the

pen of Maurice Collis →The third western

account came by the pen of Maurice Collis.

In these examples, the substitution experiment

leads to a distortion of the grammatical correctness of

the sentence. The most appropriate option would be

to combine the preposition by with the words Anita

Leung, Maurice Collis, and not the word pen. But our

task is to consider exactly that material which is in the

predicative position as a prepositional combination.

So, as the above sentences show, the genitive

syntaxeme expressed by the prepositional phrase in

the predicative position is represented by the variant

–from S and the nouns of this syntaxeme are realized

by means of the following words: books, reference

books, devices, natural resources, buildings, proper

names.

There are 4 variants of the objective syntaxeme -

for S, to S, of S, about S.

Let us consider the objective syntaxemes

expressed by the prepositional combination in the

predicative position, denoting the person or object to

which the action is directly transferred, i.e. denoting

the object of action, or the actor, or the instrument of

action, etc.

The most common variant of the objective

syntaxeme is to be for S and the syntactic-semantic

sign of objectivity is proved by posing the question -

for whom? For example:

1. It was only for the little children (N. p.16) →

For whom was it?

2. That victory would be for us. (N.p.57) →

For whom would be that victory?

3. Democrats were for poor people (D.N.p.19)

→ For whom were democrats?

Close in meaning to the preposition for is the

preposition to. But when the preposition for is

replaced with to, the meaning of the sentence

changes.

The preposition for in the prepositional phrase for

the little children is used when we talk specifically

about the thing being transferred (bags, dress, sweats,

etc.) and the lessons.

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

240

The preposition to is used when referring to

information being conveyed, events, etc. For

example:

1. The reference was to my movie "JFK"

(N.nov.4.96. p105)

2. But his first call was to the Harvard

University switchboard. (J.F.M. p97)

The objective syntaxeme is expressed by the

preposition about:

1. It's about developing national pride.

(N.may.26.97. p48)

2. My response is more about myself (C.M.

p.11) 3 that was about winning (J.F.M.

p.246)

In rare cases, we can see the objective syntaxeme

expressed by the preposition of:

1. The only talk is of the Bible and family.

(N.march 26.97.p45)

2. My personal and strongest impression....

was of a man who told the truth. (C.M.p14)

It is possible to replace the preposition with the

preposition about and the meaning of the sentence

does not change. The correctness of the examples is

confirmed with the help of the experiment:

1. The only talk is about the Bible and family.

→ What is the only talk about?

2. My personal and strongest impression... was

about the man who told the truth.→ Who

was my personal and strongest impression

about?

Very often the objective syntaxeme is expressed

by the prepositional phrases one of, kind of, part of:

1. The lawn was one of those familiar suburban

places (J.F.M.p.94) → What was the lawn

one of?

2. It's one kind of music (J.F.M.p.169) → What

is it kind of?

3. The Wroclaw factory is part of a trend.

(N.aug.25.97. p33) → What is the Wroclaw

factory part of?

From the above examples, we can conclude that

the means of expressing the objective syntaxeme in

the predicative position are various prepositions (for,

to, about, of) in combination with a noun, which

represents the object of action. The prepositions of,

about are interchangeable, which we cannot say about

the first two. When the preposition for is replaced by

the preposition to, the semantic correctness of the

sentence is violated.

The prepositional combinations in the predicative

position have the syntactic-semantic feature of

purpose. The final syntaxeme is the syntaxeme of

purpose, the concept of which is connected not only

as a fact of human activity but also as an objective

fact of nature. "The relation of expediency acts as a

specific form of interaction, which makes it possible

to discover a certain directionality of processes, their

conditionality by final results appearing as goals."

(VSE.M.1987 vol. 28.p.473)

The final syntaxeme represented by the

prepositional phrase in the predicative position has

only one variant to be for S. Here are examples

indicating the sign of purpose:

1. The novel was for reading in the parking

garage. (J.F.M.30)

2. The study tapes are for active learning at

home (C.M.5)

3. It was for protection (MT.A.286)

To prove that these sentences contain the sign of

purpose, let's turn to the experiment with question - 1.

For what purpose was the novel? 2. For what purpose

are the study tapes? 3. For what purpose was it? -

According to the experiment, we can say that the

prepositional combinations in the position of

predicative possess the sign of finality.

5 CONCLUSION

The prepositional combinations in the predicative

position exhibit diverse syntactic-semantic features.

Each syntaxeme revealed by these combinations

possesses its system of variants. The examination of

syntaxeme variants, which are functional equivalents

of prepositional combinations in the predicative

position, enables us to infer that beneath an outwardly

identical expression—i.e., behind a prepositional

combination in the predicative position—there can

exist entirely different units of the deep structure of

the sentence in terms of their syntactic-semantic

content.

When differentiating syntaxemes, their formal-

distributive features, such as combinability, location,

positional possibilities, as well as lexical filling, play

a crucial role. The syntaxemes we investigated are

expressed through combinations with various

prepositions. The free interchangeability of variants

of one syntaxeme indicates the commonality of their

syntactic-semantic content. However, it should be

noted that not all the syntaxemes we have identified

have interchangeable variants.

The study of prepositional combinations in the

predicative position was conducted using methods of

linguistic analysis.

Predicative Prepositions: Syntax-Semantics Interplay in Combinations

241

REFERENCES

Functional-semantic aspects of grammar. (1987).

Linguistic Research, 50-59, 183-190.

Jumayev, G. I. (2023). "Audiomanuscript" – a project on

the study of oriental manuscript sources. Journal of

Social Research in Uzbekistan, 50-52.

Jumayev, G. I. (2022). History and etymology of the study

of the ethnonym "Turk." In ICESSER 5th International

Congress. Rome, Italy.

Jumayev, G. I. (Year). Oq qo‘yunli etnonimining

etimologiyasi. Scholar Scientific Journal, 1(34), 85-90.

Nizomova, M. B. (2022). Classification of pedagogical

terms in international relations. Academic Research in

Modern Science, 1(1), 252-256.

Nizomova, M. B. (2023). Expansion of social functions of

pedagogical terms in various spheres of society.

Oriental Journal of Philology, 3(02), 8-13.

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

242