The article is about the valence of the counteragent of state verbs. The counteragent is meant as a secondary performer, marked in the verb of situation. In this case, the counteragent and the agent, in essence, correspond to each other. The agent and the counteragent are realized as the performer of the situation. Adequate activity of the agent and counteragent has a specific meaning; therefore they are classified as different actants. The agent is the leader, and the counteragent acts as «imitating him». In relation to the agent, the counteragent will be «subordinate» and in relation to the actants (locality, object, addressee, etc.) – «dominant». In the state verbs the implementation of the agent in the nominative and the counteragent in the analytical form ⁅model N + bilan 'together'⁆ is typical. The realizer of the valence of the counteragent of state verbs, as a unit of speech consisting of an analytical form, semantically expresses a comitative relationship. It is characteristic that the compatibility expressed in the analytical form directly enters into a semantic relationship with the mutual voice of the state verb, which, due to the semantic possibility, attach the realizer of the counteragent are used at speech only in the main voice. It follows from this that only the state verbs in the main voice will have the valence of the counteragent. A state verb in a mutual voice logically requires more than one agent. This is an axiom, but the counteragent is in an analytical form regardless of the number of individuals directly related to the state verb in the mutual voice. Its semantic-morphological change is not necessary, because the counteragent is a secondary processor. The counteragent as a person is observed in state verbs with integral semes «duration», «performance» and «physiological». These verbs of the state that have the valence of the counteragent – it is advisable to approach the object phrase from the point of view of the relation of control, since in the verbal control is distinguished the control between strong and weak.
The article is about the valence of the counteragent of state verbs. The counteragent is meant as a secondary performer, marked in the verb of situation. In this case, the counteragent and the agent, in essence, correspond to each other. The agent and the counteragent are realized as the performer of the situation. Adequate activity of the agent and counteragent has a specific meaning; therefore they are classified as different actants. The agent is the leader, and the counteragent acts as «imitating him». In relation to the agent, the counteragent will be «subordinate» and in relation to the actants (locality, object, addressee, etc.) – «dominant». In the state verbs the implementation of the agent in the nominative and the counteragent in the analytical form ⁅model N + bilan 'together'⁆ is typical. The realizer of the valence of the counteragent of state verbs, as a unit of speech consisting of an analytical form, semantically expresses a comitative relationship. It is characteristic that the compatibility expressed in the analytical form directly enters into a semantic relationship with the mutual voice of the state verb, which, due to the semantic possibility, attach the realizer of the counteragent are used at speech only in the main voice. It follows from this that only the state verbs in the main voice will have the valence of the counteragent. A state verb in a mutual voice logically requires more than one agent. This is an axiom, but the counteragent is in an analytical form regardless of the number of individuals directly related to the state verb in the mutual voice. Its semantic-morphological change is not necessary, because the counteragent is a secondary processor. The counteragent as a person is observed in state verbs with integral semes «duration», «performance» and «physiological». These verbs of the state that have the valence of the counteragent – it is advisable to approach the object phrase from the point of view of the relation of control, since in the verbal control is distinguished the control between strong and weak.
| № | Имя автора | Должность | Наименование организации |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rasulov R.. | Professor, Doctor of Philology, | Chirchik State Pedagogical Institute Tashkent region, Uzbekistan |
| № | Название ссылки |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Look at.: Apresyan Yu.D. Lexical semantic. – In the book.: The synonymic facilities of language. M.1974. p.127 |
| 2 | 2. There was. Look at the page. 127. Look at.: Slyusareva N.A. Problems of functional syntax of modern English. M.1981. p.107 |
| 3 | 3. Kuchkartaev I. K. Valence analysis of speech verbs of the Uzbek language. T.1977. p.30 |
| 4 | 4. There was. Look at the page. 31 |
| 5 | 5. The term main agent was introduced by O.S.Akhmanova. Look at: Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terminology. M.1966. p. 31 |
| 6 | 6. Kononov A.N. Grammar of modern Uzbek literary language. M-L.1960. p.359. Look at: Akhmanova O.S. The book shown above. p. 200 |
| 7 | 7. Look at: Kononov A.N. The book shown above. p. 299. |
| 8 | 8. O’zbek tilining izohli lug’ati, Tom 1. M.1981. B.117 |
| 9 | 9. Russian grammar,Volume 2. M.1980. p.250 |
| 10 | 10. Peshkovskiy A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M. 1956. p. 285. |
| 11 | 11. Rosental D.E., Telenkova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. M.1976. p.500. |
| 12 | 12. The modern Russian language,Volume 2. M.1981. p.13. 13. Peshkovskiy A.M. The book shown above. p.286. |