2749

6 . F i x e d c o l l o c a t i o n s w i t h t h e a n t h r o p o n y m i c c o m p o n e n t .

Fixed collocations in which personal names are used either trace backto mythological, literary, historical sources or are connected with real people [12, p. 209].

6.1. Thus, the collocation with the anthroponomical component “America's A c h i l l e s h e e l ” (i.e., the vulnerable place) in the cited material indicates the vulnerability of the geographical position:

The doctor of military sciences dedicated his report to this weapon, which was published recently in the “Military Industrial Courier”. In the report, Sivkov called t h e A c h i l - l e s h e e l of the United States, that was formerly considered as an advantage of America, a geographical position [16*, p.2].

6.2. When they say a “s e c r e t o f P o l i c h i n e l l e ” (an open secret), they mean something that they try to hide, but, nevertheless, this something has long been known to everyone:

Yes, Vitaly Mutko asked us not to run ahead of the steam-wagon in a tired voice: “There is no decision on Cherchesov's appointment. And there is no telling that it will occur”. But, it seems, this is the s e c r e t o f P o l i c h i n e l l e . Cherchesov, not anybody else

[17*, p.17].

6.3. T h e s i n o f C a i n → fratricide:

When they say about the s i n o f C a i n , first of all, they mean f r a t r i c i d e . Indeed, according to the Genesis, Cain killed his brother Abel and even tried to hide what he had done. On the direct question of God: “Where is Abel, your brother?” he replied: “I do not know if I am a watchman to my brother?” [18*, p.28].

6.4. The expression “H e r o s t r a t i c f a m e ” means the shameful fame of a nothing:

In Ancient Greece, in the city of Ephesus, there was a temple of Artemis of Ephesus. In 356 BC it was burned. While the trail was still hot, the suspect by the name of H e r o - s t r a t u s was arrested, he was either a market merchant, or a shepherd. Under torture, he confessed that he had committed arson for the sake of glorification of his name through the ages, because he was devoid of any talent. The authorities of Ephesus executed him and forbade to mention the name of Herostratus under threat of death. But the

124

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

ancient Greek historian Theopompus witnessed this case and still i m m o r t a l i z e d t h e s h a m e f u l n a m e [18*, p.28].

Here is an example of the use of a fixed phrase with the anthroponomical component

“t h e c o m p l e x o f H e r o s t r a t u s ” with the same meaning in the Russian press:

On May 11, 1891 in the Japanese city of Otsu, the future Emperor Nicholas II and his escorts rode on rickshaws through the narrow streets of the city. Suddenly one of the policemen, standing in the cordon, rushed to Nicholas and struck him two blows on the head with a sword.

There is a version that the former samurai Sanzo had a hard time undergoing bourgeois reforms in Japan. A representative of the elite class was forced to earn a living working as an ordinary policeman. And he wanted the glory of feats. And then the Russian prince… To kill him is to be remembered in history!

Another version ... Yes, Sanzo was a little confused. But he rushed to the high guest not because of t h e c o m p l e x o f H e r o s t r a t u s , but out of fear to lose the modest position that he had already had [19*, p.22].

Of particular interest are fixed phrases with the anthroponomical component preceded by the word “syndrome”, among them are both widely known and relatively new. Let’s analyze in detail each of these fixed phrases that we found in the Russian press.

6.5. S a l i e r i s y n d r o m e → i.e. discrediting someone else’s success and pathological aggression toward the object of envy:

Human history knows many villains. But some of them so impressed the imagination that the very names of them became common name.

The fact that Salieri poisoned Mozart out of envy of his talent became such a commonplace that psychiatrists even had a special term “S a l i e r i s y n d r o m e ” [18*, p.28].

As M.S. Kovaleva notes: “... anthroponyms represent an extremely dynamic layer of the language ...” [13, p.18]. And if the above-mentioned combinations with the anthroponymic component can be classified as well-established and well-known, then new times dictate new realities, including linguistic ones. As S.N. Dolzhikova states, the composition of precedent phenomena, which includes precedent names, is mobile: “... some precedents become obsolete, out of use, others acquire additional meanings and thus contribute to the emergence of new precedent phenomena” [14], which is confirmed by the examples we found in media texts.

6.6. An American actress and singer M a r i l y n Monroe → “M a r y l i n syndrome” (its meaning: helplessness, frustration, losses associated with apathy):

Exactly half a century ago, sexual therapists Masters and Johnson introduced the term

“M a r i l y n S y n d r o m e ”, the symptoms of which are remarkably similar to Maria’s state of the past two weeks. By the way, it is not so sacrilegiously to compare the Hollywood legend with a tennis player! In comparison with the Russian tennis player, Marilyn made peanuts, almost all her released films failed, and she was left without her “Slam”, in the sense of “Oscar” [2 *, p.15].

6.7. A representative of the Russian pop culture Andrei R a z i n → t h e “ e f f e c t o f

A n d r e i R a z i n ” (the phrase is associated with a special “style” of the musician’s behavior):

125

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

Most likely the “e f f e c t o f A n d r e i R a z i n ” works. As you know, the musical director of the “Affectionate May” called Moscow’s bosses in the late 80s and represented himself as a nephew of the General Secretary Gorbachev. He asked for an apartment in Moscow and got it! [20*, p.1-2].

6.8. A former US Secretary of State H i l l a r y Clinton → the “e f f e c t o f H i l l a r y ” (when a public person demonstrates an incredibly strange behavior, at first glance, which is difficult to explain):

Recently, many world media drew attention to the unusual behavior of Hillary Clinton. It seems that the first woman candidate for the presidency of the United States has health

The “e f f e c t o f H i l l a r y ” is explained as follows:

The presidential candidate got hooked on Georgian wines in 2010. Then she visited Tbilisi as a US Secretary of State.

As Georgians assure, since then, Mrs. Clinton has been drinking “Kvareli” with enviable persistence to raise her spirits [21*, p.24].

A special example is the one we found in an article with a very curious headline “Putin

Meets T o n s o f T r u m p s ”, which appeared in The New York Times on July 9, 2017. The author of the article is Gail Collins. Here is what she writes:

So Europe, we sent you a n e n t i r e f l e e t o f T r u m p s . I hope you’re grateful. And feel free to keep a few [22*].

Clearly, she is talking here about the multifacetedness of the American president, namely:

Our president, as you know, has ever-changing personas, ranging from s t a t e s m a n - l i k e R e a d e r - o f - S p e e c h e s to N e a r l y U n h i n g e d T r u m p , a version frequently seen on Twitter. And D i p l o m a c y D o n , who seemed to fall head over heels for Putin [22*].

The author’s irony reveals itself in the exaggerated form in the following context (it is difficult to understand which of the Trumps Putin negotiated with):

The two presidents agreed to a prearranged limited Syrian cease-fire. And they did talk about Russian meddling in the American election. But w h i c h T r u m p do you think brought the subject up? [22*].

Thus, the phrase with the anthroponymic component t o n s o f T r u m p s can be called a high-capacity phrase, because it includes a number of characteristics of the person, namely, s t a t e s m a n l i k e R e a d e r - o f - S p e e c h e s , N e a r l y U n h i n g e d T r u m p , D i - p l o m a c y D o n . As M.S. Kovaleva rightly observes, the connotate is the periphery of the semantic field of an anthroponym and depending on its meaning it can push its boundaries to infinity [15, p. 58].

Conclusion. Having analyzed the problem of functioning of the word combinations with a precedent name as an anthroponymic component in media texts, we came to the following conclusions.

126

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

We have found out that the evaluation of word combinations with an anthroponymic component can vary considerably, and in this connection we have identified five groups in the typology of evaluating of such word combinations.

The word combinations with the implicit derogative evaluation are the most frequent on the pages of the Russian press (10), the authors’ preference is explained by the fact that using this type of evaluation they can easily and unobtrusively, but at the same time, quite definitely prompt the “right thoughts” to the reader. An auxiliary linguistic tool for this purpose is the introduction into the context of word combinations with the “guiding” semantics aiming at the desired direction of thoughts, i.e. a method of putting a similar in semantics word combination or even a few word combinations into the context for increasing the impact takes place. Implicit evaluation can also be created by non-linguistic means, namely, by the actualization of background knowledge of readers based on stable stereotypes associated with the anthroponymic component of the phrase, thus a considerable saving of language resources is achieved.

Explicit derogative evaluation (2), as a rule, is expressed with the help of absolutely unambiguous lexical means with a bright negative connotation (for example, an anthroponymic derivate), but it can be also actualized through the stereotypes of the perception of the precedent name that is included in the phrase.

Both the implicit meliorative evaluation (2) and the explicit meliorative evaluation (1) are also based on the stereotypical perceptions of the anthroponymic component of a word combination by readers.

Word combinations with the anthroponymic component, in which the name of a certain scientist is actualized, or, in a broader sense, the creator, do not have connotations, either positive or negative, we can say that they have a n e u t r a l m o d a l i t y (5). An anthroponymic component of such word combinations points to the scientist, etc., who opened this or that scientific phenomenon, law, etc. Determining the meaning of such phrases without contextual support can be difficult, but it should be noted that it is predetermined exactly by the anthroponymic component.

Fixed phrases, which use personal names that go back to mythological, literary or historical sources, or relating to our contemporaries, are also widely used by the authors of materials from the Russian media.

The author’s irony can be expressed in an exaggerated form (for example, the word combination t o n s o f T r u m p s , implicating several different derogatory meanings and constituting a certain matrix, which, in its turn, can be decomposed to several different completely independent meanings that serve to channel the presuppositions of readers regarding the discussed character).

We believe that this study has excellent prospects, since onomastics is very responsive to all changes in a society, and accordingly new tendencies appear, which are known to await their authors.

References

[1]Zyrjanova I.P. Precedentnye fenomeny v zagolovkah rossijskoj i britanskoj pressy (2005–2009 gg.), Avtoreferat dis. … k.f.n., 10.02.20 – sravnitel'noistoricheskoe, tipologicheskoe i sopostavitel'noe jazykoznanie. – Ekaterinburg, 2010 g. – 24 s.

[2]Ivashova E. S. Ispol'zovanie precedentnyh antroponimov v media-tekstah: gendernyj aspekt / Vestnik Cherepoveckogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2012. – №3. – T. 1. – s. 6569.

[3]Nahimova E.A. Imena rossijskih carej kak precedentnoe pole v sovremennyh rossijskih SMI // Vestnik Permskogo universita, 2009 god. – Vyp.2. – S. 12-19.

127

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

[4]Kropacheva K.I. Antropocentricheskij podhod k izucheniju antroponimicheskogo prostranstva anglijskogo jazyka // Culture and Civilization, 2015. – №4-5. – S. 17-30.

[5]Nenasheva T.A. Konnotativnaja semantika referentno odnoznachnogo imeni: monografija / T.A. Nenasheva. – N. Novgorod, 2012. – 153 s.

[6]Fomina Z.E. Meteorologicheskie poslovichnye primety s imenem svjatogo v nemeckom lingvokul'turnom soobshhestve/ Z.E. Fomina // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Ser. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2015. – vyp. 2 (26). – S. 129–146.

[7]Fomina Z.E. Chelovek, prostranstvo i kul'tura v zerkale russkih paremij/ Z.E. Fomina

//Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Ser. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2016. – vyp. 2 (30). – S. 42–59.

[8]Sherstjukova E.V., Kolesnikov A.A., Peresypkin A.P. Nacional'no-kul'turnyj aspekt funkcionirovanija imen sobstvennyh (na materiale nemeckogo jazyka). – Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2010. – № 1 (5), chast' 1. – S. 227-229.

[9]Sebrjuk A.N. Stanovlenie i funkcionirovanie afroamerikanskih antroponimov (na materiale amerikanskogo varianta anglijskogo jazyka) Dissertacija … k.f.n. – Moskva, 2014. – 224 s.

[10]Zubkova L.I. Kul'turnaja obuslovlennost' antroponimicheskoj konnotacii // Vestnik TGU, 2008. – № 8(64). – S. 146-152.

[11]Garagulja S.I. K voprosu ob antroponimicheskoj identichnosti (na materiale anglijskih lichnyh imen) // Voprosy onomastiki, 2012. – № 2(13). – S. 43-52.

[12]Garagulja S.I. Iz opyta sozdanija «Lingvokul'turologicheskogo slovarja anglijskih lichnyh imen» // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, 2016. – №2. –

S. 205-211.

[13]Kovaleva M.S. Anglijskie antroponimy i ih leksikograficheskoe predstavlenie

Avtoreferat … k.f.n. – Samara, 2015. – 24 s.

[14]Dolzhikova S.N. Precedentnye fenomeny v anglijskom jazyke [Jelektronnyj resurs] – URL: http://journal.kfrgteu.ru/files/1/2011_2_18.pdf (data obrashhenija 29.08.17).

[15]Kovaleva M.S. Otrazhenie semantiki imen sobstvennyh v anglijskih antroponimicheskih slovarjah // Al'manah sovremennoj nauki i obrazovanija, 2014. – № 1 (80) . – C. 56-59.

Analysed sources

[1*] AiF, № 22 (1803) 27 maja-2 ijunja 2015 goda, S.8. [2*] AN, № 33 (474), 3-9 sentjabrja 2015, S. 1-2.

[11*] KP, №2-t (26479-t), 14-21 janvarja 2016 goda, S.4. [12*] KP, №89 (26417) 11 avgusta 2015, S.13.

[13*] AN, №50 (491), 29 dekabrja 2015 goda-14 janvarja 2016 goda, S. 15. [14*] KP, № 28-t (26403-t), 9-16 ijulja 2015, S.7.

[15*] Ushherbnost' ugnetennyh klassov – Aleksej Alekseenko – Nauka i tehnologii – Materialy sajta – Snob, URL: http ://snob.ru /selected /entry/9045 (data obrashhenija

– 3.04.2015).

128

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

[16*] KP, 16-23 aprelja 2015 goda, S.2.

[17*] AN, № 28 (519), 21-27 ijulja 2016 goda, S.17.

[18*] AiF, № 35(1053), 26 avgusta-1 sentjabrja 2015, S.28. [19*] AN, № 18 (509), 12-18 maja 2016 goda, S.22.

[20*] AN, № 13 (504), 7-13 aprelja 2016 goda, S.1-2. [21*] AN, № 32 (523), 18-24 avgusta 2016 goda, S.24.

[22*] The New York Times, URL: https: //www. Nytimes .com/ 2017/07/07/ opinion/ putin-meets -tons-of-trumps .html? action=click &content Collection= Opinion& module =RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article (vremja obrashhenija – 11.07.17).

129

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

UDC 811.111

CATEGORY OF POSSESSION AND ITS SYSTEM ORGANIZATION IN THE ENGLISH DISCOURSE

V.L. Malakhova

____________________________________________________________________________

Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)

at Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia Victoria Leonidovna Malakhova

Candidate of philological science, associate professor, assistant professor of English Language Department № 4

FGAO UVO MGIMO (University) at the MFA of Russia e-mail: mv313@yandex.ru

____________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. The article describes the specifics of the representation of the category of possessiveness by the means of the lexical and grammatical levels of the English language. The author analyzes properties of lexical and grammatical, structural and morphological, structural and syntactic means of expression of possession. Results. The author described the initial state of the development of the category of possessiveness, the features of the formation of pragmatic and semantic possessive meanings by lexical means (verbs of possessive semantics and possessive pronouns), morphological (N’s+N) and syntactic (N1 of N2, N1 with N2, N1+N2). Moreover, the common factors of making up of possessive meanings by certain means and the basic pragmatic and semantic categorical meanings which form their basis are specified.Conclusion. Representation of the category of possessiveness in the language is carried out at the lexical and grammatical levels; each of them has a certain set of language means. Language forms, typical for a particular level, reflect different aspects of possessiveness in different ways. Clarification and concretization of a pragmatic and semantic possessive meaning, as well as the actualization of categorical meanings, occur due to additional discursive factors within the framework of a particular utterance.

Key words: category of possessiveness, relation, representation, language levels, language means, discourse, pragmatic and semantic possessive meaning.

For citation: Malakhova V.L. Category of possession and its system organization in the english discourse / V.L. Malakhova // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2017. – № 4 (19). – P. 130 - 139.

Introduction.

Possessive nominations were repeatedly described in the scientific literature from the positions of the structural and semantic, functional, and cognitive approaches (the works of N.N. Boldyrev, A.V. Bondarko, A. Vezhbitskaya, E.M. Volf, N.V. Drusina, Vyach. Vas. Ivanov, O.N. Seliverstova, J.R. Taylor, V.N. Toporov, C. Fillmore, M. Halliday, and others). However, this issue does not lose relevance for a number of reasons:

1)the relations of possessiveness are universal: they actualize the phenomenon inherent in any linguistic consciousness – the connection of an object with other objects of the external world (not only possession), and also the link between the elements within an object itself [1];

2)their role in the evolution of the functional (pragmatic and semantic) space of discourse, to which they give specific semantic increment, remains studied insufficiently;

3)the modern stage of the development of languages, including English, is characterized by rather intensive changes in the structure and pragmatics of linguistic units (for example, the tendency to use the possessive form -’s with inanimate nouns), and it requires systematization and reflection [2; 3; 4].

____________________

©Malakhova V.L., 2017

130

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

Possession is considered to be a functional and semantic category, which includes pragmatic and semantic meanings of possessiveness and means of their verbalization [1, p. 138]. This category is represented in language both by lexico-grammatical and structural means.

Thus, within the framework of the common language system, it creates the (sub)system comprising many components and formants of possessiveness and connections between them. These links provide a dual state of the (sub)system: on the one hand, relatively stable and equilibrium (the links are reproduced according to the models that have developed in the language), on the other hand, flexible and evolving (the links are formed particularly in each specific use). Such phenomena are convincingly revealed by functional linguosynergetics, which studies the dynamic and system properties of language and speech [5; 6]. This scientific approach implies the analysis of the linguistic system, its subsystems and their elements on the basis of the description of the “phase of order” – the initial state of an investigated system (in our case, the category of possessiveness). Thus, at this stage, we see our task in describing the properties of lexical and grammatical, structural and morphological, and structural and syntactic means of expressing possessiveness, as well as the features of the formation of pragmatic and semantic possessive meanings by the named means.

This study will help to reveal a spectrum of language means in characterizing the relationships of possessiveness, as well as to understand the specifics of the link in the human mind of possessive relationships and their verbal representation. This type of relationship is of interest not only in linguistic, but also in extralinguistic perspective, as it correlates with property issues, various family, social and political relations, copyright rights, priority of one or the other of the parties involved in solving emerging problems, etc. So we can see the importance of the category of possessiveness for discourse which embraces different aspects of people’s relations – not only common but also institutional discourse of different types reflecting the processes of regulation of these relationships (in particular economic, legal, advertising and business in general) [7; 8; 9; 10; 12;13]. It is known that in these spheres of activity different situations are exacerbated not so much because of the complexity of the issues being solved, but because of the lack of flexibility in the reaction or the accuracy of the wording with respect to the partner (opponent). Therefore, it would be desirable that the linguistic analysis of means of expressing possessiveness and their functioning in discourse should help in developing recommendations for harmonizing people’s interaction on the basis of relations of possessiveness.

All of the above raises the conducted analysis to the rank of challenging.

Methodology of the study. In this article, the object of the research is pragmatic and semantic possessive meanings formed by specific linguistic means within a certain discursive space. The subject of the study is means of expressing the possessiveness in the English language, their functional (pragmatic and semantic) properties, as well as the role of possessive nominations in formation of system meanings of English discourse. The study of the specifics of formation of pragmatic and semantic possessive meanings is carried out on the material of fiction and journalistic works of contemporary English speaking authors. In the course of the research the method of functional analysis of discourse, the method of component analysis, and the method of systematization are applied.

Results of the research. As it was pointed out above, the category of possessiveness is represented by a combination of pragmatic and semantic possessive meanings and means of their verbalization. From the standpoint of the functional approach, the possessiveness is considered as a functional and semantic category, and possessive meaning – as a variant of the actualized pragmatic and semantic meaning.

A possessive meaning is formed by means of lexical and grammatical language levels – possessive pronouns, verbs of possessive semantics, morphological (N’s+N) and (N1 of N2, N1+N2, N1 with N2) constructions. Moreover, additional discursive modes of reflection help to specify a possessive meaning and to actualize categorical meanings in particular statements.

131

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

This process proceeds in a complex way – as a synergistic interaction of all elements of speech, giving meaningful increments of possessive semantics and diverse pragmatics.

The expression of possessiveness at the lexical level is associated with the formation of ideas and knowledge about possible possessive relations, meanings and characteristics that are established between objects of the natural world, as well as between objects of the inner world of man. In general, the vocabulary reflects a certain part of the picture of the world, and the expression of the possessiveness at this level of language is due to the ability of a person to distinguish one or another possessive meaning relevant in this situation. To analyze the patterns of the formation of possessive meanings by lexical units in the English discourse, as well as the identification of pragmatic and semantic categorical meanings that form the basis for the formation of these meanings, let us turn to the verbs of possessive semantics and possessive pronouns.

In the system of the English verb, there is a subclass of verbs, the semantic structure of which includes the constituent of possession. This group includes such verbs as, for example, have, possess, own, belong, contain, take, gain, obtain, get, acquire, etc. To identify pragmatic and semantic meanings is possible through the meanings of the language units that represent the category of possessiveness. Therefore, to determine the meanings that make up the content of this category, we use the dictionary definitions of the above verbs.

have – to possess, to own something because you have bought it or someone has given it to you [1**, p. 293].

possess – to have a quality or skill, especially one that is very good or special [1**, p. 483].

own – to possess something, to have something as property [1**, p. 450].

belong – to be the property of a person, organization etc; to be a part of something [1**, p. 57].

contain – to have or hold (things) within itself, to have something inside or as a part [1**, p. 135].

take – to accept, have, use something, to gain possession of something [1**, p. 642].

gain – the process of getting possessions or wealth, an increase in amount or power; to gradually get more of a useful skill or a good quality [1**, p. 260].

obtain – to get something [1**, p. 433].

get – to receive, to obtain; to be given something without having to ask for it or pay for

it [1**, p. 265].

As the above definitions show, the verbs have, possess, own foreground the pragmatic and semantic meaning “possession”; the verbs belong, contain – the meaning “belonging”; and the verbs take, gain, obtain, get, acquire – the pragmatic and semantic meaning “acquisition or changing of ownership, belonging”.

In the process of verbal and cogitative activity, the specified categorical meanings form the base of a pragmatic and semantic possessive one. For example:

(1) “[…] M a r k h a s a c o m p a n y c a r and a driver, silly,” said Una [1*, p. 16].

(2) […] I know you will allow ‘the old gentleman’ to send you s o m e t h i n g which once b e l o n g e d t o t h e little g r a n d d a u g h t e r he lost [2*, p. 39].

(3) Most p e o p l e injured in such accidents c o u l d n o t bring lawsuits or o b t a i n r e d r e s s if they had to pay their legal fees in advance, as in England [3*, p. 109].

Thus, in sentence (1), due to the semantics of the verb have, behind the possessive meaning lies the pragmatic and semantic meaning “possession”. In example (2) the semantics of the verb belong forms the corresponding pragmatic and semantic meaning “belonging”. And in statement (3), owing to the semantics of the verb obtain, the possessive meaning is formed on

132

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

the basis of the pragmatic and semantic meaning “acquisition or changing of ownership, belonging”.

A possessive meaning, formed by the verbs, is specified in the context of an utterance by a lexical unit expressing the object of the possessive relation. Therefore, the object of the possessive relationship, which is expressed, as a rule, by a noun or pronoun, is mandatory. The subject of the possessive relationship, also expressed by nouns or pronouns, can be omitted. It is more common for verbs in the passive voice. For example:

The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects “speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when t h e c e n - t e r s a r e privately o w n e d ” [3*, p. 249].

The associates could dine there twice a year, only twice – and r e c o r d s w e r e k e p t – and then only at the invitation of a partner [4*, p. 28].

Possessive pronouns express the relation of belonging [12]. So, their semantics conveys possessiveness and denotes that something belongs to a person or there is some kind of relationship between a particular object and a certain person. Both attributive (dependent) (my, your, etc.) and absolute (independent) (hers, ours, etc.) possessive pronouns are means of expressing possessiveness on the lexical level of the language. The fact that possessive pronouns are interpreted through the concept of belonging is confirmed by their vocabulary definitions, for example:

my – of, belonging to, or associated with me [1**, p. 417].

our – of, belonging to or associated with us [1**, p. 444].

hers – something or someone belonging to or associated with her [1**, p. 300].

yours – something or someone belonging to, or associated with you [1**, p. 727], etc.

The analysis of the dictionary definitions of the pronouns of this subclass indicates that their semantics activates the pragmatic and semantic meaning “belonging” in the content of the category of possessiveness. Moreover, a possibility of defining possessive pronouns through the notion associated with proves the possibility of such pronouns to express not only possession but also a relationship. As a result, in the content of the category of possession a pragmatic and semantic meaning “attitude / relatedness to the subject” is activated; it forms the basis for the possessive meaning in cases where the subject of a possessive relationship, in fact, does not have the object of a possessive relationship, for example:

Should the states tighten t h e i r d r i v i n g r e g u l a t i o n s for the young in the interests of increased safety? [3*, p. 288].

Possessive pronouns express attributive relations directed towards the subject or object [12]. The specifics of the pronouns of a given subclass is that they refer to a particular subject and fulfill an anaphoric, i.e. replaceable, function [13]. They point to something or refer to something – animate and inanimate objects – and express an attitude towards their properties, qualities, characteristics, etc. In other words, possessive pronouns denote the subject of possessive relationship.

(4) “[…] I resent the Church’s implication that m y l o v i n g R a l p h or his loving me is wrong!” [5*, p. 311].

(5) Although some uninformed investors chose to sell immediately following the crash, t h e i r l o s s was a gain to the investors who provided liquidity based on their private information [6*, p. 76].

133