302
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.45.09.30
How to Cite:
Chervony, A.M., Demonova, J.M., & Murashova, E.A. (2021). Lexico-grammatical peculiarities of expressing indefinite semantic
subject in russian and english. Amazonia Investiga, 10(45), 302-311. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.45.09.30
Lexico-grammatical peculiarities of expressing indefinite semantic
subject in russian and english
ЛЕКСИКО-ГРАММАТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ ВЫРАЖЕНИЯ НЕЯВНОГО
СЕМАНТИЧЕСКОГО СУБЪЕКТА В РУССКОМ И АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ
Received: July 18, 2021 Accepted: September 8, 2021
Written by:
Chervony Aleksandr M.
119
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4587-0195
SPIN-код 1350-1560
Demonova Julia M.
120
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4871-0146
SPIN-код 8820-8200
Murashova Evguenia A.
121
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6018-955X
SPIN-код 3786-6495
Abstract
Аннотация
Цель исследования: рассмотреть способы
репрезентации неявно выраженного
семантического субъекта в русском и
английском языках для выявления
особенностей его выражения. В качестве
материала для исследования нами был
использован текст романа М. Булгакова
«Мастер и Маргарита» с его параллельным
переводом на английский язык. В работе
использовались метод семантического
анализа, компонентный контекстуальный и
сопоставительный методы анализа, а также
метод лингвистического моделирования.
Научная новизна исследования состоит в
сопоставительном анализе языкового
материала, который продемонстрировал
наличие как симметричных форм выражения
формально неявного семантического
субъекта, так и асимметричных средств его
выражения. К симметричным средствам
русского и английского языков
имплицитного выражения субъекта относят
номинализацию. Обобщенный субъект может
быть выражен симметричными и
асимметричными синтаксическими
конструкциями русского и английского
языков. Асимметрия выражения
имплицитного субъекта проявляется в
* (based on the materials of the novel by M. A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" and its translation into English)
119
Dr. Taganrog Institute named after A.P. Chekov (a branch of) Rostov State University of Economics, Russian.
120
Ph.D. Taganrog Institute named after A.P. Chekov (a branch of) Rostov State University of Economics, Russian.
121
Taganrog Institute named after A.P. Chekov (a branch of) Rostov State University of Economics, Russian.
Chervony, A.M., Demonova, J.M., Murashova, E.A. / Volume 10 - Issue 45: 302-311/ September, 2021
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
303
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
разного рода синтаксических конструкциях,
представленными бинарными оппозициями.
В результате было выявлено: преферентными
средствами выражения неявного
семантического субъекта в русском языке
выступают неопределенно-личные и
безличные предложения, в английском –
пассивные конструкции.
Ключевые слова: семантический субъект,
формальная имплицитность, симметрия,
асимметрия, синтаксическая конструкция,
сопоставительный анализ.
Introduction
The relevance of the research is due to the need
to consider in a comparative way the means of
expression of an implicitly presented semantic
subject. This universal phenomenon, which
characterizes the dynamism and diversity of
linguistic forms, performs an important
nominative and communicative function and, as
a result, requires its own special consideration.
The doer of the action is always present in human
mind and for that reason it always has some kind
of omnipresence in speech. So, the active
accomplisher or the action is probably the most
relevant information, which is encoded into the
speech and therefore, it is realized through
various linguistic means directly or indirectly.
The purpose and objectives of the study
The purpose of this article is to identify and
compare the ways of representing the implicitly
expressed semantic subject as it is formulated in
Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary by
Arutyunova (Arutyunova, 1990) in Russian and
English. To achieve the set goal of the study, it
was necessary to solve the following tasks: 1) to
conduct a sample of factual material; 2) classify
the types of means of expression of the subject;
3) to conduct a comparative analysis of lexical
and syntactic forms of expression of an implicit
semantic subject; 4) to identify the general and
the particular cases in the expression of the
implicit semantic subject, which is characteristic
of the Russian and English languages.
We used the text of M. Bulgakov's novel "The
Master and Margarita"(Bulgakov, 1967) with its
parallel translation (Bulgakov, 1967).into
English as material for research;
Research problem
In our research, we develop the problem of the
polyphonic expression of the subject in various
linguocultures, including Russian and English,
paying special attention to the paradigm of the
means of expressing an implicitly presented
semantic subject, as a universal phenomenon that
characterizes the dynamism and diversity of
linguistic forms and performs important
nominative and communicative functions.
The practical significance of the work lies in the
fact that its results can be used in the process of
researching the category of "subject", in teaching
the comparative typology of English and
Russian, the theory and practice of translation, as
well as in classes on the semantic grammar of the
Russian and English languages.
Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
The theoretical basis of the research was the
scientific works of N.D. Arutyunova, V.G. Gak,
V.P. Nedyalkov & G.G. Silnitsky,
V.S. Khrakovsky, E. Benveniste, C.N. Li,
S.A. Thompson, J.-M. Merle, M. Noonan, in
which the linguistic concept of the subject, its
semantic subspecies, as well as the lexical-
semantic and syntactic means of its incomplete
formal expression are considered.
Methodology
The work used the method of semantic analysis,
component contextual and comparative methods
of analysis, as well as the method of linguistic
modeling.
In the contemporary world of total globalization
comparative studies of various ontological issues
are becoming more and more popular because
they are striving for getting the status of
linguistic universal laws applicable in any
304
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
language. One of those categories is thought to
be the ways of expressing semantic subject.
Search and interpretation of the similarities and
differences in lexico-grammatical realizations of
the indirect semantic subject in different national
linguistic systems, including the Russian and
English languages, allows the investigators to
approach the principles of deciphering unique
codes of the linguistic interpretation of the
surrounding reality.
Studies of the classic literary work by M. A.
Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita” and its
professional translation to English by employing
contextual component method allows the
researchers to find and systemize symmetric and
asymmetric lexical and morph syntactical
peculiarities of presenting semantic subject,
including ways to express indefinite personal
subject, generalized subject and implicit subject.
Techniques of the comparative analysis and
linguistic modeling method give the opportunity
to verify the bases for highlighting certain
preferable lexical and morph syntactical means
of expressing semantic subject in generalizing
expressions in Russian and English bearing in
mind the linguistic inner controversies. Those
aforementioned include indefinite personal and
impersonal sentences in M. A. Bulgakov’s
original text and passive constructions in the
translation. In studying lexical and morph
syntactical means of expressing semantic subject
the researchers also take into account the
statement of the semantic analysis method which
is relevant to the modern linguistic
anthropocentric and structural systematic
paradigms.
Wide variety of methods and techniques allows
the researchers to approach the analysis of
different ways of representing the indirectly
expressed semantic subject in different linguistic
systems on the lexical, morphological and
syntactic levels. The mentioned above semantic
subject is actualized in the identical linguistic
context and fulfills same functions from the point
of view of realizing various shades of meaning.
Lexical and morph syntactical means of
expressing semantic subject are also described
from the point of view of their distribution which
is determined by the conditions of the
communicative situation and conventional norms
of the Russian and English linguistic systems.
Recurrent realization gives rise to viewing those
means as a hierarchy which is described in this
paper.
These are the aims of the investigation: 1) to
conduct a sample of factual material; 2) classify
the types of means of expression of the subject;
3) to conduct a comparative analysis of lexical
and syntactic forms of expression of an implicit
semantic subject; 4) to identify the general and
the particular cases in the expression of the
implicit semantic subject, which is characteristic
of the Russian and English languages.
Results and Discussion
The English language seems to be more
formalized and ususal than the Russian language,
which has a certain established word order and
an abundance of stable grammatical and
semantic combinations, each element of which is
determined not only by the meaning of the
statement, but also by the tradition of use as it
was explained by Chomsky in his work Syntactic
Structures (Chomsky, 2001). The Russian
language, due to its inflectional nature, has a
freer word order. These grammatical
inconsistencies underlie interlingual asymmetry.
Speech represents the most important way of
redirecting and externalizing of the human
psychological energy and the accomplisher of the
action constitutes the most important information
for the speaker. On the one hand, it goes without
saying, that the focus of attention can be
concentrated on the action itself but on the other
hand, the doer is always present in the speaker’s
mind. Since the semantic subject has an infallible
realization in speech, the problem lies in the way,
how it is actualized and to what extent it is
obvious.
The way the semantic subject is grammatically
represented in speech tells a lot about the
speakers intentions at presenting the information
relevant for the purpose of the communication.
The most obvious example is the use of passive
constructions. The speaker intentionally avoids
mentioning the active doer of the action focusing
the listener’s attention on the accomplishment.
The doer in this case can be either obvious or
hidden but it does not mean that he or she is taken
out of the context completely. What’s more, the
listener is usually aware of the presence of the
doer and understands the purpose of eliminating
the subject.
Also, the semantic subject of the utterance can
also be expressed by some figurative or idiomatic
linguistic means which in its turn enlarges and
multiplies the purposes of its nomination
manifold. Any figure of speech if used in some
figurative sense carries additional information of
all sorts; usually it concerns some linguacultural
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
305
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
peculiarities of the definite linguaculture. In
other words, idiomatic expression of the subject
has a many layered semantic structure which
consists of direct nominalization of the concrete
doer, all kinds of associations aroused by the
idiom, some extra linguistic cultural information
encoded into the idiom and so on.
The main attention in the article is paid to the
unspecified expression of the semantic subject
(the term used by Heintz in the book Subjects and
Predicables, and later by Merle in the work Le
sujet, présentation générale) in the sentences of
the Russian and English languages (Heintz,
1973; Merle, 2003). By a semantic subject, we
mean an active, intelligent substance, endowed
with speech-thinking activity, capable of
planning, causating, carrying out and controlling
a different degree of complexity of an action - a
person.
In the process of work, both symmetrical and
asymmetric means of expression (as defined by
V.G. Gak in the work Nominalization of the
predicate and elimination of the subject. Syntax
and stylistics and then enlarged upon in his
Asymmetry. Linguistic Encyclopedic
Dictionary) were identified (Gak, 1990; Gak,
1998). not fully formally presented or implicitly
expressed semantic subject.
As a result of the analysis, syntactic
constructions were identified and compared in a
comparative way, in which the forms of
expression of an implicit subject (largely
described previously by Rizzi in the work
Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition)
are presented, namely: lexical and grammatical
means of expressing an indefinitely personal
subject, a generalized subject, an implicit subject
(Rizzi, 2000).
Symmetry
The symmetrical expression of the implicit
subject in Russian and English is manifested as a
result of the use of subjective and object
nominalization in language / speech as it was put
by V.G. Gak (Gak, 1976) - expressions of action
by a noun.
Subject nominalization.
For example:
И не тебе, безумный преступник,
рассуждать о ней! - тут Пилат вскричал: -
Вывести конвой с балкона!
And it is not for you, insane criminal, to reason
about it!' Here Pilate shouted: 'Convoy, off the
balcony!'
The nominalization in this case is quite
transparent in both languages; what is more, it is
doubled: the personal pronoun is reinforced by
the concrete indication to the person meant.
Subject nominalization symmetry can also be
traced when the active doer is not a person, but
some concept; in this case, also in both languages
the focus of attention is concentrated on the
action and not the recipient:
Признаюсь, этот ответ меня удивил, -мягко
заговорил прокуратор, - боюсь, нет ли здесь
недоразумения.
'I confess, this answer stuns me,' the procurator
began softly, 'I'm afraid there may be some
misunderstanding here.
Признаюсь and I confess can also be regarded
and complete semantic symmetry of the subject
realization with the only difference lying in the
grammatical form of expression: explicit versus
implicit.
Речь эта, как впоследствии узнали, шла об
Иисусе Христе.
This conversation, as was learned afterwards,
was about Jesus Christ.
Anthropomorphic action – говорить is carried
out without a special lexical marker indicating
the communicant (s). According to A.
Wierzbicka, the meaning of the action is
conveyed by the semantics of lexical units of the
Russian and English languages речь –
conversation (Wierzbicka,1980). This kind of
subject nomination is thought to be most obvious
and devoid of any implications. From the point
of view of the meaning the phrases are identical.
Although in the given above example the
overlapping of the grammatical forms is not
complete; Russian version contains active voice,
English – implicit passive. The disagreement can
be explained by the difference in the tradition of
expression: речь шла can be regarded as a trite
metaphor and therefore can’t be changed from
grammatical perspective. The combination this
conversation was about is grammatically free
and is understood in the direct sense.
Of course, it is quite obvious that this kind of
symmetry in expressing the semantic subject is
but most numerous. It contains minimum
306
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
implication and is quite transparent for
understanding which, in its turn, is the purpose of
everyday communication – to pass on a clear-cut
and simple massage which will be understood by
the recipient as closely to the original idea as
possible.
Object nominalization.
For example: Я лично не вижу ничего дурного
в этом звере, чтобы обижаться на это слово...
– I personally see nothing bad about this animal,
that I should be offended by this word.
Ontologically, слово semantically correlates
with such concepts as: речь, говорить. In these
examples, the lexical units слово – word denote
one of the main functions of the semantic subject
and are markers of the speech activity of a
formally not designated subject.
Ходатайства того, в лице которого говорит
римская власть?
The intercession of him through whose person
Roman authority speaks?
In the second example object nominalization
works more definitely in the English language
where the gender of the doer is actualized,
although the message of the excerpt is preserved
in both cases, which is to render peculiar stylistic
coloring of the utterance.
Кстати, ты знаешь такого, первосвященник?
Да... если бы такой проник сюда, он горько
пожалел бы себя, в этом ты мне, конечно,
поверишь?
Incidentally, High Priest, do you know him? Yes
... if that one got in here, he'd feel bitterly sorry
for himself, in this you will, of course, believe
me?
Object nominalization despite grammatical
identity can differ in semantic value. In the given
above example the semantic subject
такой/такого has several layers of implication.
First of all, it is the generalization of a person
referred to, second, the implication of some
definite personal characteristics which can be
derived only from the context, third, some
pejorative connotation about the person
described. English him has no such meanings
whatsoever; it is definite and direct. That one in
the second sentence sounds more general
although the demonstrative pronoun narrows the
association to one particular person.
Expressing semantic subject through object
nominalization is second most widely used way
in speech regardless of the language. The reason
for that lies in the understanding the general
cognitive frame which is typical of human
thinking pattern: the subject – the action – the
object (reason). This information is imbedded
into any message created by human brain and
then realized through speech. Grammatical
structure of a language proves the
aforementioned point, where the semantic core is
made up by the subject, the predicate and the
object. If for some reason any of the formants is
eliminated from the formalized linguistic means,
the meaning of it is realized through the rest of
the formants implicitly.
So, the semantic subject in the mentioned above
case expresses not the active doer but the object
at which the action is aimed and which takes the
role of the passive accomplisher and takes part in
the action indirectly. Here we can talk about
different kinds of participants in the action
process which, therefore, are differently reflected
through grammatical means. The importance of
the active and passive doer in the context can be
equal; the difference lies in the focus of the
speakers attention and the relevance of the
message.
Generalized expression of the semantic subject.
The generalized expression of the subject is
conveyed by words that generalize the gender
and number of the real doer as it was proved by
A.M. Chervony in his work Semantic subject in
generalizing statements of the Russian and
French languages. (Chervony, 2019).
For example: А бывает и еще хуже: только что
человек соберется съездить в Кисловодск, -
тут иностранец прищурился на Берлиоза, –
пустяковое, казалось бы, дело, но и этого
совершить не может, так как неизвестно
почему вдруг возьмет - поскользнется и
попадет под трамвай! Неужели вы скажете,
что это он сам собою управил так?
– 'And sometimes it's worse still: the man has
just decided to go to Kislovodsk' - here the
foreigner squinted at Berlioz - 'a trifling matter,
it seems, but even this he cannot accomplish,
because suddenly, no one knows why, he slips
and falls under a tram-car! Are you going to say
it was he who governed himself that way?
In Russian and English, the subject of action is
expressed by the generalizing words человек –
the man, which equally contain the code of both
genders, masculine and feminine. Further, in the
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
307
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
context, the subject is expressed by the
postcedent - the pronoun он, which, according to
the Russian grammatical tradition, correlates
with the masculine words, in this example – с
человеком. In Russian and English, in this kind
of cases, there is an asymmetry of the concepts
of грамматический род and physiological
gender, since the word formally agrees with the
masculine pronoun, but both genders are meant.
Thus, the subject человек – man in a
generalizing sense denotes a representative of
both masculine and feminine gender, although
this is not entirely characteristic of the English
language.
The use in the English language of the
substantive man in a generalized meaning
instead of the neutral, gender-free noun person is
apparently explained by the fact that the speaker
is referring to Berlioz, a male representative.
The Russian equivalent of the noun человек –
man is also used generally in the example below:
Да, человек смертен, но это было бы еще
полбеды. Плохо то, что он иногда внезапно
смертен, вот в чем фокус! И вообще не может
сказать, что он будет делать в сегодняшний
вечер
'Yes, man is mortal, but that would be only half
the trouble. The worst of it is that he's sometimes
unexpectedly mortal - there's the trick! And
generally he's unable to say what he's going to do
this same evening.
The use in the English translation of the
articleless noun man, situationally addressed to
an individual of the masculine gender, enhances
the meaning of generalization and thus does not
contribute to the concretization of the real figure.
The generalization of the subject plays double
role in the speech. On the one hand, the context
provides the listener/reader with the exact
information about the concrete performer of the
activity. On the other hand, the idea is
generalized to the level of associations and
universal laws so the recipient understands both
levels of the embodied meaning simultaneously.
Here we can also talk about the third level of
associative meaning, which is projected to the
recipient of the information. In other words, the
listener/reader includes himself or herself into
the semantic subject.
Symmetry. Partial expression of the subject's
functions. Causative constructions.
In reality, actions are distinguished by their
heterogeneity, their diversity and, consequently,
the way they are implemented. There are such
actions that require a certain beginning, its
causation. In this case, the functions of the
semantic subject are distributed between the one
who causes the action, causates and the one who
performs the action. V.P. Nedyalkov and G.G.
Silnitsky advocated that in this case, the semantic
subject realizes only part of its main functions.
Such differentiation is reflected in the language
in causative constructions (Nedyalkov, Silnitsky,
1988).
For example:
Не прикажете ли, я велю сейчас дать
телеграмму вашему дяде в Киев?.....
Would you like me to have a telegram sent at
once to your uncle in Kiev? that is, someone must
order me to give a telegram. In the example
below, there is a double causation.
The construction of the Russian language has one
formally unexpressed causator and a causative
subject, designated by the pronoun я, then a
description of the activity of this subject follows,
the combination велю дать suggests that the
action will be carried out by another, implicit
agent. In the English version, to express this kind
of action, the author also uses a causative
construction, the so-called grammatical idiom. In
the English translation, the functions of the
subject are distributed, the implementation of the
action presupposes the participation of you – the
equivalent of which is not lexically represented,
but morphologically indicated in Russian, me
and the alleged agent one, veiled in the causative.
Causative constructions in English have a
pattern-like form where the initiator of the action
and the actual implementer can be a) both
grammatically formalized, for example, I’ll have
him do it and b) the initiator is grammatically
expressed and the implementer is not, for
example, I’ll have it done. In both cases, the
object at which the action is aimed is clearly
defined and the meaning remains that of the
action initiated by one person but accomplished
by another.
In Russian there is no specific causative form so
the meaning is usually derived from the context
and background knowledge. In the phrase он
строит дом the person indicated by the pronoun
он will rather be an initiator than the implementer
of the action according to common logics
although grammatically it is not clearly marked.
Still, we can talk about the subject as an active
doer and initiator of the activity while the real
308
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
implementer of the activity is only implied as an
obvious one.
Asymmetry
Implicit indefinite subject.
Russian language. Impersonal construction -
English. Definitely a personal construction.
The Russian language is an adverbial language in
which impersonal forms of modality expression
are actively used. The equivalent of this kind of
construction is quite often English definite
personal sentences.
For example: 1) Но об этом можно говорить
совершенно свободно. – Вut we can speak of
it quite freely.
The English pronoun we in context expresses a
double meaning: on the one hand, the narrator
can mean the inner circle of interlocutors, on the
other hand, the context is able to expand the
number of subjects, thus implying an indefinitely
wide range of people.
Надо будет ему возразить так, – решил
Берлиоз, – 'I must counter him like this,' Berlioz
decided. In the Russian text, the subject is
deduced from the communicative situation. –
Надо будет мне ему возразить…….
In this example, an impersonal construction with
a conceivable semantic subject in Russian has an
English analogue with a clearly defined subject;
although this asymmetry of the formal plan does
not affect the semantic plan: the same subject is
implied in the Russian language.
О, какой страшный месяц нисан в этом году!
Oh, what a terrible month of Nisan we're having
this year!
In the given above example the asymmetry in the
grammatical subject influences the focus of the
semantic meaning priorities. In the Russian
version, the idea is that of the difficult month
which can be viewed as objective. The English
variant contains definite semantic subject we,
which changes the meaning from difficult for
some objective reasons to difficult for some
definite people for the subjective reasons.
There is one more example of this kind of
asymmetry which is interesting from the point of
view of the meaning shift.
Дело идет к полудню. Мы увлеклись беседою,
а между тем надо продолжать.
It's nearly noon. We got carried away by our
conversation, and yet we must proceed.
Russian construction надо продолжать implies
that the is no definite accomplisher of the action,
what is more, the person who initiates the action
is not the one who fulfills it; it is not quite clear
who wants to proceed and who is going to do it.
English construction we must lacks any kind of
ambiguity; here the initiator and the
accomplisher partially coincide because of the
plural form of the definite semantic subject. M.S.
Vyhrystyuk, and others also thought along those
lines in their work Features of the translation of
сomparisons and emotional and evaluative
vocabulary from Russian to English in an artistic
text, (Vyhrystyuk, Parshukova, Telitsyna, Onina,
2019).
Russian language. Uncertain Personal Sentence -
English. Passive construction (largely
investigated by V.S. Khrakovsky (Khrakovsky,
1991)).
The first thing to pay attention to is the way of
designating an undefined subject of action. In the
Russian language, indefinitely personal syntactic
constructions are most often used, in which the
subject of the action is not formally expressed,
but is incorporated into the verb form of the
predicate. The simulacrum of the subject in the
Russian language is inflection ут(ют), ат (ят).
Such constructions do not exist in the syntactic
structure of the English language. In English,
such a designation of the subject is conveyed
either in a passive form, or using various kinds of
formal subjects.
For example:
Над вами потешаться будут. – You'll be
laughed at.
A marker in a Russian indefinite-personal
sentence with an unnamed indefinite semantic
subject is the form of the verb in the future tense.
The English version conveys the same meaning
with a passive construction. The subject of this
phrase is you, which does not correspond to the
semantic subject, since it is assumed that it is not
вы (you) who will laugh, but at вами (you). The
mentioned above feature was widely investigated
by many linguists like (Benveniste, 1948;
François, 1994; Li, Thompson, 1976; Noonan,
1977). The active subject in the English
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
309
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
translation is only implied, but in no way
encoded in any of the grammatical forms; a
passive person is manifested, over whom the
action is performed.
Thus, the passive syntactic construction of the
English language corresponds to the Russian
indefinitely personal sentence.
Consider the following examples:
Это их ввели на помост... - подумал Пилат, -
а стоны оттого, что задавили нескольких
женщин, когда толпа подалась вперед"
They've been led on to the platform,' thought
Pilate, 'and the wails mean that several women
got crushed as the crowd surged forward.
Вам отрежут голову! Бездомный дико и
злобно вытаращил глаза на развязного
неизвестного, а Берлиоз спросил, криво
усмехнувшись:
- А кто именно? Враги? Интервенты?
'Your head will be cut off! 'Homeless goggled
his eyes wildly and spitefully at the insouciant
stranger, and Berlioz asked, grinning crookedly:
By whom precisely? Enemies? Interventionists?
As in the previous case, the indefinite subject is
conveyed in the English language by a passive
construction with a supposed agent; further in the
context, the subject of action is formalized
through interrogative words and the interrogative
form of sentences. By expressing the assumption
in the text, an attempt is made to identify the real
actor (s). In Russian, the participant in the
situation is represented by the pronoun вам, in
the English sentence it is indicated by the
possessive adjective your. In fact, the object of
the influence of the implicit subject in the
English translation is the somatism head, while
in the original there is the object of influence
itself and a part of its body – голова.
Let's turn again to the above example, to its
inserted part.
Речь эта, как впоследствии узнали, шла об
Иисусе Христе.
This conversation, as was learned afterwards,
was about Jesus Christ
In Russian, the supposed semantic subject is the
pronouns мы or они, which are not formalized in
the text, but are easily deduced from the third
person plural verb of the past tense узнали. In
English, the formal subject is it, which is omitted
in the text, but is easily reconstructed from the
logic of the syntactic form, and the pronouns we
or they, which, however, are not formalized in
any way and are implied based on the semantic
meaning of the English syntactic construction,
can be a probable semantic subject
Russian language. Uncertainly Personal
Construction - English. Definitely a personal
construct.
For example: А ты бы меня отпустил, игемон,
– неожиданно попросил арестант, и голос его
стал тревожен, – я вижу, что меня хотят
убить.
'Why don't you let me go, Hegemon?' the
prisoner asked unexpectedly, and his voice
became anxious. 'I see they want to kill me.'
In this example, a formally unrepresented subject
in the indefinitely personal construction of the
Russian language is expressed in English by the
personal pronoun they. Comparison of the
original and its translation showed semantic
symmetry (incomplete) and lexical-grammatical
asymmetry. In Russian, the subject is hidden or
indefinite, although it is morphologically marked
with the form of the verb хотят. The formal
implementation of the subject by the pronoun
they in English also allows the subject to be
perceived both indefinitely and quite specifically
(they are present, the ones they talked about).
This specific feature was mentioned by V.V.
Zelenskaya and others in the work ) Innovative
Discourse in the Formation of a Modern Ethno-
Cultural Environment. It should be noted: the
speaker realizes his pragmatic intention if he
knows, but for some reason does not name the
real actor (Zelenskaya, Golubtsov, Karabulatova,
Kanon, Kasyanova, 2018).
Generalized subject. Russian language.
Definitely personal construction - English. An
impersonal construction.
В Ершалаиме все шепчут про меня, что я
свирепое чудовище… – It is whispered about
me in Yershalaim that I am a fierce monster.
In this example, the collective semantic subject
все is not represented in the English translation.
The subject is implicit in a passive construction
with the formal subject it: thus, in the original,
the subject is fully expressed, in translation it is
not formally represented. It should be noted that
in English there are similar ways of expressing a
310
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
subject with a similar meaning: all, everyone,
they, so the reasons for such a replacement are
not entirely clear. Most likely, during the
translation, the main focus was on the process,
and not on the subject that produced it.
Semantic asymmetry
Semantic asymmetry manifests itself primarily at
the interlanguage level as a result of
inconsistency with the category of number. So,
the analogue of the plural subject люди in
English is the collective noun people, which is
free from any gender differences.
Эти добрые люди, - заговорил арестант и,
торопливо прибавив: - игемон, -
продолжал…….
‘These good people,' the prisoner spoke and,
hastily adding 'Hegemon', went on……
Conclusions
A comparative analysis of the linguistic material
has demonstrated the presence of both symmetric
forms of expression of an implicit semantic
subject and asymmetric means of its expression.
The symmetrical means of the Russian and
English languages include the implicit
expression of the subject through subjective and
object nominalization.
The generalized subject can be expressed
symmetrically - lexical units and asymmetrically
- syntactic constructions of the Russian and
English languages.
Partial expression of the subject's functions is
carried out in Russian and English by sentences
with a causative form.
The asymmetry of the expression of the implicit
subject is manifested in various syntactic
constructions represented by the following
binary oppositions: impersonal construction
(Russian) - definitely personal construction
(English), indefinitely personal sentence
(Russian) - passive construction (English),
indefinite - personal construction (Russian) -
definitely personal construction (English).
The preferential means of expressing an implicit
semantic subject in Russian are vaguely personal
and impersonal sentences, while in English these
are passive constructions.
In Russian, due to its inflectional nature and
synthetic structure, the semantic subject more
often than in English does not find its formal
lexical expression in a sentence. An implicitly
expressed semantic subject in Russian sentences
is marked morphologically: with verbal
inflections, it is also revealed by the semantic
meaning of the entire utterance (primarily by the
semantics of the predicate) and contextually.
The syntactic constructions of the English
language, as a formalized language, are
characterized by a much more frequent use of
lexical units (mainly pronouns) representing the
subject.
The research was carried out with the financial
support of the Russian Foundation for Basic
Research within the framework of the scientific
project No. 19-012-00062 "Polyphony of the
semantic subject (based on the material of the
Russian, French, English and German
languages)", conducted at the Rostov State
University of Economics (RSUE); Head - Doctor
of Philology, Associate Professor, Head of the
Department of German and French languages
A.M. Chervony
Bibliographic references
Arutyunova, N.D. (1990). Subject. Linguistic
Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Soviet
encyclopedia, 685 p.
Benveniste, E. (1948). Noms d’agent et noms
d’action en indo-européen. P.: Adrien-
Maisonneuve, 174 p.
https://archive.org/details/BenvenisteNomsD
agentEtNomsDactionEnIndoEuropeen1948
Chervony, A.M. (2019). Semantic subject in
generalizing statements of the Russian and
French languages. Language and reality.
Scientific readings at the Department of
Romance Languages named after V.G. Gack.
Collection of articles on the results of the IV
international conference, pp. 432-440.
https://www.elibrary.ru/author_items.asp?au
thorid=471853
Chomsky, N. (2001). Remarks on
Nominalization. R.A. Jacobs and P.S.
Rosenbaum (eds.). Reading in English
Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA:
Ginn, pp. 184-221.
https://www.grin.com/document/4808
François, J. (1994). La mise en ordre des
relations actancielles : les conditons d’accès
des rôles sémantiques aux fonctions de sujet
et d’objet. Langages, No. 113, pp. 7-45.
Gak, V.G. (1976). Nominalization of the
predicate and elimination of the subject.
Syntax and stylistics. Moscow: Nauka,
pp. 85-102.
Volume 10 - Issue 45
/ September 2021
311
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Gak, V.G. (1990). Asymmetry. Moscow:
Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, 685 p.
Gak, V.G. (1998). Using the idea of symmetry /
asymmetry in linguistics. Linguistic
transformations. Moscow: School
"Languages of Russian culture", pp. 106-137.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/2000-01-
002-gak-v-g-yazykovye-preobrazovaniya-m-
shk-yaz-rus-kultury-1998-763-s
Heintz, J. (1973). Subjects and Predicables. The
Hague: Mouton and Company, 103 p.
Khrakovsky, V.S. (1991). Passive constructions.
The theory of functional grammar.
Personality. Pledge. St. Petersburg: Science,
St. Petersburg department, pp. 141-180.
Li, Ch. N., & Thompson, S.A. (1976). Subject
and Topic: A New Typology of Language.
New York: Academic Press, pp. 457-489.
Merle, J.-M. (2003). The subject, general
presentation. The Subject, Language Facts
Library, Ophrys, pp. 5-14, Available at:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00378857
(accessed 02.06.2021)
Nedyalkov, V.P., & Silnitsky, G.G. (1988).
Typology of causative constructions:
Morphological causative. Academy of
Sciences of the USSR. Institute of
Linguistics. Leningrad: Science. Leningrad
branch, 311 p. URL
https://docs.yandex.ru/docs/view?tm=16338
83760&tld=ru&lang=en&name=nedjalkov_
ed_1988_typology_resultative.pdf&text=Ne
dyalkov%20V.P.%2C%20Silnitsky%20G.G.
%20(1969).%20Typology%20of%20causati
ve%20constructions%3A%20Morphological
%20causative.%20Academy%20of%20Scie
nces%20of%20the%20USSR.%20Institute%
20of%20Linguistics.%20Leningrad%3A%2
0Science.%20Leningrad%20branch%2C%2
0311%20p.&url=https%3A%2F%2Filing.sp
b.ru%2Fdepartements%2Ftypology%2Fmat
erials%2Fpublications%2Fnedjalkov_ed_19
88_typology_resultative.pdf&lr=971&mime
=pdf&l10n=ru&sign=94de1346b6576e9756
f5d884829bf343&keyno=0&nosw=1
Noonan, M. (1977). On Subjects and Topics.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of
Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley,
California, pp. 372-385.
https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceed
ings/index.php/BLS/article/view/2252
Rizzi, L. (2000). Comparative Syntax and
Language Acquisition. London: Routledge,
384 p.
Vyhrystyuk, M.S., Parshukova, M.M.,
Telitsyna, E.L., Onina, S.V. (2019). Features
of the translation of сomparisons and
emotional and evaluative vocabulary from
Russian to English in an artistic text.
Amazonia Investiga, 8(20), 422-431.
Retrieved from
https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/am
azonia/article/view/172.
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua mentalis: The
Semantics of Natural Language. Sydney:
Academic Press, 367 p.
Zelenskaya, V.V., Golubtsov, S.A.,
Karabulatova, I.S., Kanon, I.A.,
Kasyanova, Z.S. (2018) Innovative Discourse
in the Formation of a Modern Ethno- Cultural
Environment. In the: Astra Salvensis, Vol. 6,
#12.
Sources of examples
Bulgakov M.A. The Master and Margarita
(1967): A Novel. LitMir, 416 p.
https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=256&p=1
Bulgakov М. (1967). The Master and
Margarita. Translated and with Notes by
Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.
Penguin Books. Available at:
https://www.bookfrom.net/mikhail-
bulgakov/33685-
the_master_and_margarita.html