О КРИТИКЕ КОНЦЕПЦИИ ТРАНЗИТИВАЦИИ РУССКИХ ГЛАГОЛОВ

Анотація

У статті аналізуються критичні зауваження, що були висловлені у статті А. Градінарової та Є. Зарецького з приводу концепції розвитку перехідності у неперехідних російських дієслів, яка розробляється М. Н. Епштейном. В переважній більшості випадків наводяться контраргументи, що підтримують цю концепцію, спираючись на доведені лінгвістичні положення та емпірично достовірні письмові висловлювання самого М. Н. Епштейна. Зауваження щодо непояснення М. Н. Епштейном факта великої кількості вже втрачених перехідних дієслів в мовленні селян середини XIX століття визнається слушним, і пропонується відповідне пояснення.

Ключові слова: дієслово, перехідність (транзитивність), безприйменникове керування, дієслівна дія, прямий об’єкт, акузатив. 

В статье анализируются критические замечания, высказанные в статье А. Градинаровой и Е. Зарецкого по поводу разрабатываемой М. Н. Эпштейном концепции современного развития переходности у непереходных русских глаголов. В подавляющем большинстве случаев приводятся поддерживающие данную концепцию контраргументы, которые опираются на доказанные лингвистические положения и эмпирически очевидные письменные высказывания самого М. Н. Эпштейна. Замечание по поводу необъяснения М. Н. Эпштейном факта большого количества ныне утраченных переходных глаголов в речи крестьян середины XIX века признается справедливым, и предлагается соответствующее объяснение.     

Ключевые слова: глагол, переходность (транзитивность), беспредложное управление, глагольное действие, прямой объект, аккузатив.

The article analyses criticisms made in A. Gradinarova and E. Zaretsky’s work regarding the concept of contemporary developing transitivity with intransitive Russian verbs, which is being created by M.N. Epstein. The following criticisms are considered and discussed. 1) M.N. Epstein does not notice that in the Russian language transitive verbs are massively derived from intransitive with affixes, prefixes in particular. However, the authors of the article do not take into account that such derivative verbs differ from motivating ones in lexical meanings;

2) M.N. Epstein does not notice that many ancient Russian transitive verbs lost their ability to control non-prepositional accusative due to the emergence of other cases in the language. However, the authors of the article do not take into account the following. Within non-prepositional verbal control, those verbs, which controlled the accusative, were not considered to be transitive and they started to control other cases. It happened because their verbal action did not transform the object expressed by the accusative; 3) M.N. Epstein views transitivity as a mental category, which demonstrates the agent’s cognitive self-sufficiency who takes responsibility for transforming the affected object. However, M.N. Epstein does not clarify why afterwards the lost Russian transitive verbs were still observed in peasants’ speech up to the middle of the 19^th century. In terms of M.N. Epstein’s specified aspect inactivity, the reproach seems fair. However, it is possible to explain the feature hypothetically.

In fact, the transitive verbs that remained in peasants’ speech in the 19^th century were likely to be dialectisms which are generally accepted as having the property of inertia. In ancient times, there were more such verbs than we can observe now because originally a young language shows all its abilities and subsequently only those verbs, which are in communicative demand, remain; 4) M.N. Epstein does not pay attention to the fact that the languages of prehistoric nations are as analytical as English, which he recognizes as a model language. However, the authors of the article do not take into account that analyticity of these languages is incompatible with the analyticity of English as it is connected with its critical lack of words and essentially syncretic incorporation; 5) M.N. Epstein does not take into consideration that native English speakers are more inclined to fatalism than native Russian speakers are. However, the authors of the article do not specify how these data relate to the universally recognized significant distinction between civilized developments of native speakers of both languages.   It is a well-known fact that those nations who believe not in themselves but their destinies are not able to create well-developed civilizations; 6) M.N. Epstein does not mention the reason for the ‘new Russian transitivity’ and this reason is some native Russian speakers’ individualism. However, M.N. Epstein does not deny the reason anywhere. What is more, he implies it in a number of his statements also; there is a direct reference to the reason in his latest monograph; 7) M.N. Epstein cannot deny that the ‘new Russian transitivity’ is wordplay, which is not beyond conversationality. Nevertheless, M.N. Epstein admits it what can be proved by his statements in writing. Thus, out of all criticisms that the authors of the article addressed to Epstein (as a creator of Russian verbs transitivization concept) it is possible to consider as fair only the fact he did not try to explain  why the transitive verbs, which were lost subsequently, were used in peasants’ speech at least until the middle of 19^th century. It is impossible to view the other criticisms as relevant.

Key words: verb, transitivity, non-prepositional verbal control, verbal action, direct object, accusative.