Abstract
The article considers structures having the meaning of prevention. Some debatable questions in the interpretation of this type of semantics and linguistic means of its expression by supporters of different scientific trends make the article topical. The objective of the study is to reveal semantic specifics of the preventive imperative and differentiate it from a number of related constructions (with the meaning of caution, threat and fear) and also from prohibitive forms and optative constructions. A descriptive method, being used within the framework of structural-semantic approach, has been used as a leading one in the present article but with a greater attention to the semantic side of the phenomenon than it is customary in grammatical research. Thus, we support grammatical approach and justify its use for analysing the constructions under discussion. As a result, we tried to create a semantic model of a preventive utterance as a complex of correlative meanings forming an indivisible semantic unity and getting a synthetic expression in the structure of the sentence. Special attention has been given to the semantic importance of the negation in the structure of the preventive imperative. The material of the article and its results may be useful for further research in the semantic area under discussion. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s7p65
Highlights
1.1 Actualizing the problemPreventive constructions have been sufficiently completely characterized both in grammatical and semantic research
A conventional point of view, being developed in the framework of grammatical theory, considers the preventive imperative as a type of semantics having as a means of its expression a specific type of syntactical constructions with negation, built by the form of the second person of perfective verbs in imperative mood
According to the conventional point of view, the prohibitive imperative and the preventive imperative form a semantically separate field of meanings in imperative speech, represented only with two meanings (Vinogradov, 1986). The difference between these sub-types of the stimulus with negation lies in the use of verb forms: prohibition is realized with imperfective verbs and prevention – with perfective verbs
Summary
1.1 Actualizing the problemPreventive constructions have been sufficiently completely characterized both in grammatical and semantic research. A conventional point of view, being developed in the framework of grammatical theory, considers the preventive imperative as a type of semantics having as a means of its expression a specific type of syntactical constructions with negation, built by the form of the second person of perfective verbs in imperative mood. In accordance with this treatment, the term comprises a limited circle of constructions of the type: ɇɟ ɩɪɨɥɟɣ!; ɇɟ ɩɨɫɤɨɥɶɡɧɢɫɶ!; ɇɟ ɭɩɚɞɢ!, etc., having serious limitations of lexico-grammatical character. The difference between these sub-types of the stimulus with negation lies in the use of verb forms: prohibition is realized with imperfective verbs and prevention – with perfective verbs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
