I. English, Kazakh and Russian linguists` point of view on structural and semantic properties of parenthetical words in linguistics

• Meaning and types of parenthetical words in the English, Kazakh and Russian languages.

Even a cursory acquaintance with the phenomenon of parenthetic in English reveals a serious problem: English scientists do not mark such correspondence of structures in the Russian language. Despite the subtle distinction between species and subspecies of parenthetical and inserted constructions (with distinction many terms) in English studies there is no concept comparable to the concept of parenthetical constructions in the Russian language.

It should start with the fact that most foreign English grammar still do not focus on the difference between the insert and the parenthetical constructions, combining them into a group, referred to as the "parenthesis". According to the dictionary, edition of Yu. Apresjan, this word corresponds to the translation ' parenthetical word or sentence". However, the most complete definitions found in English grammar and is accompanied by examples, suggest that the concept of "parenthesis" is not only an parenthetical sentence, which are dealt with separately in the domestic linguistics. The English word "parenthesis" (mean and inserted constructions including) a word or an expression, "usually explaining or clarifying inserted in the text segment to which it is not grammatically linked, and isolates brackets, dashes, commas, etc. . '. If you look at a complete dictionary and grammar, then find and mark about a special intonation design, the expression "a gentle lowering of the voice" of the possible locations of structures and their relationship to the basic sentence, and others.

More differentiated approach to the study of this phenomenon is provided by Russian linguist M.A. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya. In their textbook «English Grammar» authors identify a group of independent elements of the sentence, called "parenthesis": «modal with fishing, phrases and whole sentences." These constructions express "attitude of the speaker to the content of the statements" and are included in the structure of the sentence is not grammatical form with her communication. Modal words are usually located in the beginning of a sentence, at least - in the end. They are always separated from the main part of the sentence pause, but what attracts attention, not always separated punctuation. According to the authors, with modal words closely related group of elements called "appended sentences". It also reflects the subjective modality, but these elements are located in the middle or end of a sentence. It is important to note that some of the examples of this group (minority) expand and sentence information content, i.e. its clarifications or explanations.

In some works of Russian linguist we find attempts to create a parallel tradition of Russian grammar, i.e. system of division and parenthetical the slide construction.

For example, E.N. Gorbachev stressed that the "concept of a single parenthetic in English grammar hidden two interconnectivity, but nevertheless functional and communicative various phenomena", which the author calls "deviation" and "parenthetics" (parenthetical words and construction). Based on work of M. J. Bloch, she delves into the syntactic nature of this phenomenon and examines the nature of the predicate, which is part of an parenthetical unit, connection type, and some other issues.

More extensive research that addresses not only the syntactic level, we see in the O. H. Polikarpova "Communictive paranteza composite of syntax as a unit." The author combines parenthetical construction and term "paranteza" but considering each type separately. So, she calls parenthetical structures modus parantezs and parenthetical structures as intercalated. Polikarpova gives a very objective assessment of the significance of the embedded information: being self-sufficient components intercalated paranteza can be carved out from the sentence without violating the formal structure of the sentence, but they greatly enhance the factual text.

Reference to the problem of parenthetical structures, especially, should take into account that up to 50 years of XX century Russian researchers did not set themselves the task to delimit the parenthetical structures from the inserted: they were treated as a single group of elements, which are often called "parenthesis." Despite differences in terminology, this long period of interest to modern linguists and translators in connection with basic research of various features that characterize the phenomenon of " parenthesis".

For the first time the differences between these concepts were recorded in the publication of Russian Grammar. The first description of the essence of the parenthetical structures is found in the works of Mikhail Lomonosov "Inline sign roomy - a word or a mind-speech seats without a union and decent works." Although he gives Lomonosov considered phenomena special name - "roomy sign" - and sees it only as part of the syntax, it is a criterion for the absence of syntactic relation to the basic sentence will subsequently be used as the basis by most domestic researchers.

Thus, the definition of M.V. Lomonosov repelled N.I. Grech, describing theparentheticalsentence, or parantezy, in his "Practical Russian grammar" (1834). It is important to note that, although under theparentheticalsentence should be understood modern parenthesis parenthetical structures in this paper for the first time appears the term "intercalary sentence", which is still being used as a kind of parantezy expressing the author's words with direct speech.

The following word and phrases are not parenthetical and not separated by commas: maybe, just as if, in addition, to top it off, all of a sudden, because, ultimately, that's unlikely, after all, even barely, exclusively, just as if as if, just, besides, meanwhile, probably, on a sentence by the decision by the decision, about, about, though nearly so, just, decisive, though, allegedly, and others. Our specially figured semantic Author and grammatical features the following words.

If, as though, yet, as it were. If and as if it had never are parenthetical, and can be either Union (was quiet (as) if there was a thunderstorm) or particle ((As) As if really do not understand!). The same can be said about yet (though I love him, still do not agree with (union); I think he still agrees (particle)) and, as it were in the normative language (There was a rustle, as if someone -That was still in the room (Union); Agrees as if unwillingly (particle).

Using expressions in fact the author usually states that a certain situation is real and not subjectively perceived. In such cases, this expression is closely related to the meaning of words with other sentences, and should not be separated from them by a comma; Wed .: This story happened in reality; She thinks that cares about the purity of morals, but in reality it is led by distrust and dislike. It is difficult to present a sentence, which in fact would express the same meaning as the parenthetical word really - it's with the help of the speaker tells about their own experiences and feelings in regard the described events or situations.

In connection with the first attempt to separate an parenthesis for the group to be mentioned by P. Perevlesskiy. In his "Outlines of Russian syntax" (1843), he identifies two classes of parenthesis, contrasting them with the type containing information that under the current linguistics can be roughly described as a message to the subjective modal value added and factual information. In the twentieth century the absence of performance often becomes the defining characteristic that distinguishes a plug design from the parenthesis.

If the parenthetisis is next to the coordinative conjunctions, then separating it depends on the context: - If the parenthetical word can be omitted or relocate to another place sentences without violating its structure (usually it happens when unions and and), then the union is not included in the parenthetical design because it is separated by a comma: Firstly, it was dark, and secondly, all tired - Firstly, became dark, and all tired - became dark, firstly, all tired and, secondly; These circumstances may affect the selection of data, methods of analysis but, as a rule, not its result - These circumstances may affect the selection of data, methods of analysis, but not in its result - These circumstances may affect the selection of data analysis techniques but not on the result, as a rule; - If the removal or rearrangement of the parenthetical words are impossible, the comma after the union (usually at the Union a) shall not be put: She just forgot about this fact, and maybe it will never not remember.

Another important component of the concept of " parenthesis" was clarified by V.A. Bogoroditskiy already in 1935. In the "General course of Russian grammar", in addition to syntactic processing parenthesis, he proposes to consider the characteristics of intonation accompanying parenthesis: "When pronouncing they [parenthesis] receive special tempo and other strength and tone.".

Controversial is the question of the significance of the insert structure. Categorizing information distinguish basic information and "incidental" structure. So, the main purpose of the text is achieved through basic information, and side information is explanatory, associative, ie. E. Complementary. Significance was assessed by linguists more information in different ways: some are considered major and "side" of the equivalent significance, others attribute the dominant position of only one of them.

F.I. Buslayev in a "historical grammar of Russian language" is considering parenthetical words as a kind of a complex or merged sentences are to be joined by the method of submission, but are inserted into a sentence without any "visible" grammatical relation.

D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskiy in "The syntax of the Russian language," writes: "The parenthetical words appeared as a result of the reduction once the full sentence, from which there was only one or the other part, sometimes transformed into a particle."

Academician A.A. Shakhmatov believes that the parenthetical words "are reduced by implication sentences" and therefore "can not be defined either as a principal or as a minor sentence" because they stand out parenthesis, but are inserted into it.

A.M.Peshkovsky parenthetical structures considers alien, "inwardly alien to shelter their sentence" [26,404]. However, their heterogeneity is only in isolated position, intonation and grammar selection in the part of the sentence. In the same respect, they are semantically closely and directly related to the content of the utterance. Linguist notes that "the parenthetical words and combinations formed from the so-called parenthesis, you have a suggestion, inserted in the middle of the other sentences, but not connected with them grammatically.

A.M. Peshkovsky explains grammatical peculiarity of the parenthetical words by their origin and makes no attempt to determine the grammatical position of parenthetical words in sentences of modern Russian language on the grounds that they do not involve "any suggestions in order coordination, management and contiguity" [26,372].

Thus, until recently rejected any whatsoever grammatical relationship between the structure and parenthesis. However, recent studies in active development question of the availability of communication structures with parenthesis of basic composition.

So, A.G. Rudnev describes the relationship between the parenthetical part of the sentence and correlative: "Between the parenthetical words and the rest of the sentences we have the specific nature of the relationship (ratio), which is specifically expressed his relationship elements in the sentence and which we propose to call ratio or correlative bond" .[30, 123].

According to A.I. Studneva, " parenthesis come with semantic structure of the statements in the functional content link, which we call ordinative and which is based on current relations between the elements of the speech situation" . [33,309]

Scientific controversy surrounding the discharge of parenthetical structures related not only to the presence or absence of communication between the component and theparentheticalstatement of the main structure, but also apply to the composition of the parenthetical units.

In the book of V.V Babaytseva, L.Y. Maximov allocated eight groups of parenthetical components by value. The first two groups: the accuracy of the message, the fact (confidence) and assumption (uncertainty), according to the authors, "characteristic of the parenthetical units and they constitute the value of subjective modality. To express these values ​​are used the most numerous group of words and phrases whose the modal words. "

N.S. Valgina identifies seven categories of parenthetical words and phrases in value, among which "constitute a large group of parenthetical words and phrases with a modal value expressing the degree of reliability assessment of the speaker reported (confidence, suggestion, doubt, uncertainty, etc.). [9,392]

A.I. Anikin allocated among the parenthetical words of two main groups: 1) parenthetical words expressed by modal words, 2) parenthetical words provided by other parts of speech. The division is based on the degree of separation of the word "system of forms and meanings of the original word." [3,32].

R.A. Karimov allocated four main groups of parenthetical words and phrases in the value of emphasizes of the parenthetical words and phrases with the value of the degree of reliability of the statements. The peculiarity of this semantic group of parenthetical structures is that the components of its parenthetical words and combinations of words are involved in the expression of modality of the message. Modal values ​​they express their lexical content. [18,137].