As it is known, every discourse-text presents a regular structure and a coherent system, functioning as a complete message, possessing its own content and organized by one of abstract models, existing in the language, characterized by some distinctive features . The very notion of ‘content’ applied to a text unity acquires its terminological use, different from the notions: ‘sense’ and ‘meaning’. So, coherence and cohesion can be treated not only as semantic phenomena, being manifested as structural, semantic and communicative integrity, ‘interacting as form, content and function’ . It`s evident that communicative integrity of a discourse-text is expressed in the relations of successions between its forming components, micro-segments, or super-phrasal units (SPU) . Otherwise, each following sentence of SPU (micro-text) is supported by a preceding one, what produces various communicative chains, structuring a statement informatively in the direction: from a known fact to a new one. All sentences, forming a (micro)text, are interlinked not only by their thematic unity and the principle of communicative progression, but also by external signals, indicating that all the components make up some structural complex. Such linking elements can be presented by pronouns, articles, auxiliary verbs, particles, etc.
Discourse-texts of different styles can be also formed by means of special elements, having got in the theory of linguistics the name of ‘logical connectives’ . These linking words, or so called ‘transitions’ can both contribute to text unities structuring and comprehension. It`s obvious that depending on the functional-stylistic character of discourse-texts in question the number and cast of connectors can considerably differ with certain types possible prevailing. This fact can be explained by specific features of text fragments structural-compositional, logical-semantic integrity. In its turn, that predetermines possibilities of more/less extensive variation of syntactic relations and means of their realizing, what results in different units contextual synonymy. Evidently, these tendencies are expressed distinctly in speech statements characterized by high preciseness and logics of material presenting, informative density, what is particularly observed in scientific and official prose. Strict segmentation and linear structuring, compositional unity of such texts necessitate constant use of (inter)phrasal connectives with more or less expressed lexical semantics.
Considering a generally accepted in modern communicative pragmatic syntax theory principle of ‘transitions’ classifying into three main types : a) purely grammatical; b) lexical-grammatical; c) purely lexical, it`s necessary to define more precisely the actual scope and content of sub-classes in question. Thus, the first group comprises copulative elements: auxiliary verbs, conjunctions, prepositions, some parallel constructions, etc.; the second division includes parenthesis-modal conjunctive words, whole sentences and their parts, prepositional-substantive complexes, etc.; the third group covers various word doublings, synonyms, antonyms, etc., with taking into account connective word combinations, phrase segments and chains, such as: conjunction + conjunctive adverb, conjunctive adverb + parenthesis element, part of a sentence + conjunctive adverb, conjunctive adverb + conjunctive adverb, etc. One can easily guess that a special interest for researchers is provoked by the second group units considered to be signals of sin-semantic relations, markers of so-called ‘left/right context’ . The cast of these elements is formed primarily by parenthesis-modal adverbial-substantive elements: a) ‘besides, more(over), furthermore, again, likewise, certainly, then, next, now’, etc. (en.); ‘maintenant, en plus, ensuite, encore, alors, en effet, enfin’, etc. (fr.); ‘ausserdem, mehz, weiteres, wieder, natuerlich, gewiss, naechste’, etc. (ger.), marking connective type relations; b) ‘however, yet, still, (al)though, hence’, etc. (en.); ‘pourtant, cependant, quand même, en même temps’, etc. (fr.); ‘trotzdem, noch, zumindest, obwohl’, etc. (ger.), marking contradiction type relations; c) ‘therefore, thereupon, thus, accordingly’, etc. (en.); ‘conséquemment, finalement, enfin, donc’, etc. (fr.); ‘deschalb, folglich, demnach, solchergestait’, etc. (ger.), marking consequence type relations. It` s quite natural to suppose that all of them can easily correlate with primary and secondary conjunctions as bearers of synonymic functional meanings, even replacing and supplementing them in certain positions. So the elements of this kind are able to form particular peripheral compound groups of words in the language system, combining morphological features of one class with syntactic characteristics of another and are regarded as partial transforms, having special localization zones in the functional-semantic field of ‘conjunction’ . In fact, most of such lexical-grammar ‘transitions’ are incorporated into syntactic complexes not only as constructive elements, fixing contextual-logical connections between sentences and their parts, but also as the markers of modal assessment, signals of actual segmentation . The ability of obtaining connective functions in a large syntactic context can be explained not only by initial semantic similarity with so called ‘pure’ conjunctions and conjunctive words, i.e. the absence of subject-conceptual content in their semantics, but also by a clear tendency for ‘language economy’ . In fact, it is even considered to be the ground for their raising to a special interclass sub-category of so called ‘conjunctive adverbs’ existing in the language system as a ‘complex group of non-changeable lexical units, differentiated by distributive characteristics’ , a constant reserve for conjunctions total cast enlarging.
Acknowledging the possibilities of frequent parenthesis elements transpositions into syntactic distributions favorable for acquisition a secondary conjunctive function, it is necessary to mention the inner reasons and factors of this phenomenon. The main factor predetermining the easiness of their position and functional charge change, apart from their paradigmatic features, i.e. almost absolute morphological invariability (with the exception of some adverbial words ability to produce degrees of comparison forms, for example, ‘likely’), is their semantics initial relativity . Primarily different elements of adverbial-substantive and other genesis thanks to their lexical semantics abstractness and largeness of their manifestations scope are capable of marking the widest spectrum of semantic-syntactic relation nuances in predicative structures, SPU: temporal, conditional, causative, concessive, conclusive, contradictory, etc. In fact, it causes a really strong trend for their constant integration with purely grammar copulas, what results in possible partial or complete functional-semantic complex transforming and correspondingly in their further moving first into peripheral and then towards the central zones of ‘conjunction’ functional-semantic field spheres . Of course, this process of ‘parenthesis-modal’ and ‘conjunction’ functional-semantic fields interaction is rather slow, characterized by a multi-stage course, what can be shown schematically by the figures presented below.
Figure 1. The first stage of functional-semantic fields interaction
A – the center of ‘parenthesis-modal’ functional-semantic field sphere
B – the center of ‘conjunction’ functional-semantic field sphere
C – the point of functional-semantic fields integration
Figure 2. The second stage of functional-semantic fields interaction
Remark: C, D – the points, marking the border of functional-semantic fields integration zone.
Figure 3. The third stage of functional-semantic fields interaction
Remark: The shaded segment marks the enlarged zone of functional-semantic fields integration.
Figure 4. The fourth (final) stage of functional –semantic fields interaction
Remark: The circles inside mark the zones of parenthesis-modal ‘transitions’ localization adjacent to the centers of the functional-semantic field spheres.
Depending on the extent of ‘relativity’ component expression in connective elements` general semantics, they can be localized in different circles of ‘conjunction’ functional-semantic field structure, more or less distantly from its central sections, what predetermines the possibility of such units use as the basic construction material. Naturally, the group of so-called secondary conjunctives can be formed in the periphery of adverbs class out of elements mostly disposed to be syntactic copulas in complex sentences, SPU because of their semantics ‘relativity’ component expression top extent . For example, adverbial words and combinations: ‘moreover, furthermore, however, therefore’, etc. (en.); ‘ensuite, encore, pourtant, en plus, conséquemment’, etc. (fr.); ‘ausserdem, weiteres, trotzdem, folflich, demnach’, etc. (ger.) are used for syntactic complexes parts binding with the same intensity as interrogative-relative adverbs (‘when, where, why, how, what’, etc. (en.); ‘quand, comment, où, pourquoi, que’, etc. (fr.); ‘wann, wo, warum, wie, was’, etc. (ger.)). Other elements of this group: ‘meanwhile, instead, finally, hence, also, consequently, none/nevertheless, next, still, then, otherwise, besides, thus’, etc. (en.); ‘finalement, initialement, cependant, enfin, contrairement’, etc. (fr.); ‘dann, naechste, noch, deshalb’, etc. (ger.) are most frequently used as discourse-text inter-sentential ‘transitions’ together with prepositional-substantial combinations, prepositional-conjunction contaminants and compound copulas.
For example: 1. Now the economies of English-speaking countries stand at different stages of the cycle. However, despite periodic recessions or depressions, they have continued to grow over time [2, p.126].
- Capital is also needed for salaries, credit extension to customers, advertising, insurance and many other operations. Moreover, financing is essential for growth and expansion of a company… [2, p.147].
- Horizontal mergers allow to secure low cost operation by realizing economies of scale in manufacture and distribution. Besides, the combined organization may have access to technical and financial resources, previously not available [2, p.128].
- Pour être efficace, il faut que les moyens soient doublés. En plus, il vaudrait mieux augmenter le contrôle et adapter les textes, aujourd`hui totalement dépassés par les nouvelles technologies [8, p.138].
- Les transformations que la France a connues durant les années 60-80 ont entraîné des réformes profondes dans le domaine de l`enseignement. Cependant, les changements qui en découlent, maintiennent l`inégalité sociale [8, p.126].
- Quant aux nouvelles technologies, elles nous astreignent à une temporalité assez brève. Par suite, le déréglement de la temporalité politique, économique devient une simple figure de la bêtise [8, p.154].
- Classical economists believe that under these circumstances, the interest rate will fall, causing investors to demand more of available savings. And an increase in savings will lead to a rise in investment expenditures through a reduction of the interest rate [2, p.159].
- Tout est affaire de perspectives et de structure de consommation, car on peut observer à la fois l`augmentation des coûts de certaines dépenses contraintes; mais aussi la baisse des coûts de communication [8, p.147].
- Universitäre Bildung gehörte nach Auffassung der meisten nicht dazu, folglich muss das System geändert werden [4, p.138].
- Die Ermittler hätten das Gebäude nach neun Stunden wieder verlassen, meldete die Nachrichtenagentur Anadolu. Trotzdem haben die nichts gefunden [4, p.178]
- Organisationen des Landes versammeln um sich ständig ganze Reihen ihrer Anhänger, keine gleichgültigen Menschen, gerade deshalb ist es schon gelungen, sehr viele scharfe Probleme auf einer positiven Grundlage zu lösen [4, p.124].
- Es gibt keine Garantie, dass die Gefahr auf Canterbury begrenzt ist… Und alle Neuseeländer müssen besonders wachsam sein», hieß es… [4, p.167]
It`s quite obvious that copulative words in above given phrases show certain difference of semantic features expression extent. Thus, the adverbial-substantial elements ‘moreover’ (en.), ‘en plus’, ‘par suite’ (fr.), ‘deshalb’ (ger.) uniting syntactic complexes parts: (2), (4), (6), (11) bring into them lexical-semantic nuances of ‘addition’, ‘supplement’, ‘logical order’, ‘consequence’, ‘succession’, accentuating at the same time the most relevant information, contained in the statements segments. Otherwise, they play both the roles of modal quality explicators-modifiers  and communicative-pragmatic lexical intensifiers. One can guess, that this position of ‘discursive elements’, that`s of ‘left/right side sin-semantic signals’ , helps them to mark a passage from one (micro)theme to another, thus contributing to actual segmenting of syntactic groups. As far as adverbial elements ‘however’ (1), ‘cependant’ (5), ‘trotzdem’ (10) are concerned, they probably add the lexical nuance of ‘contradiction’ into the whole semantic-syntactic complex, functionally closely interacting with conjunctions ‘mais’ (8), ‘und’ (12).
Of course, the very possibility of combining two functions at the same time – of a binding element/ an adverbial modifier, proves the independence and broadness of their base lexical-grammar meaning with the lexical component obvious prevailing, its ‘conjunction’ element having much weaker manifestations. Thus, all this necessitates postulating the fact of preserving initial semantic features by the adverbial-substantive ‘transitions’ in question despite their actual syntactic transpositions and ‘auxiliary’ functioning usual character. In case (3) the adverbial-conjunctive word ‘besides’ also acts as a copula joining two parts of a complex phrasal unity, thus it realizes primarily the ‘conjunction’ component potentially contained in its base semantics and peculiar in any extent for most adverbial words. In fact, this unit is not related concretely to any of phrase segments, what can be proved by the impossibility of its combinations supposed excluding of syntactic complexes in case of possible segmentation. That is an obvious sign of this ‘transition’ semantic dominant absence and initial category features obvious transposition in given syntactic distributions . Of course, the common sign of paradigmatic invariability provides possibilities of their mutual integration in the sphere of morphology.
It`s quite clear, that the adequate idea of ‘conjunction’ element expression extent in a language unit general semantic complex and possible transformation usual/occasional character under given syntactic distributions can be obtained only in case of its multi-aspect comparing with specialized ‘conjunction’ function bearers – purely grammar copulas. So, considering the functional-semantic features of parenthesis-modal linking elements ‘moreover’, ‘however’, ‘folglich’, ‘trotzdem’, ‘en plus’, ‘cependant’ and grammar copulas ‘and’, ‘besides’, ‘car’, ‘und’, ‘deshalb’, etc. one can distinctly see their close interaction by the meanings of ‘relativity’, ‘conjunction’: (1); (2); (3); (4); (5); (6); (7); (8); (9); (10), (11), (12). The similarity of ‘transitions’ functional charge in above given examples is quite evident, still, their obvious semantic differentiation is observed in the extent of lexical components expression in the general semantic complex. Surely, the conjunctions ‘and’, ‘car’, ‘und’, as well as adverbial-conjunctive words ‘besides’, ‘deshalb’ bring into phrasal unities а purely grammar meaning of ‘joining’ and entering them as linking elements they can`t be considered their members. Thus, they are totally (7), (8), (12) or mostly (3), (11) deprived of any other functional charge and can be omitted without any violation of phrases coherence and changes of their semantics.
For example: (8); 81 Tout est affaire de perspectives et de structure de consummation… on peut observer à la fois l`augmentation des coûts de certaines dépenses contraintes; … aussi la baisse des coûts de communication.
(11); 111. Die zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen des Landes versammeln um sich ständig ganze Reihen ihrer Anhänger, keine gleichgültigen Menschen, gerade … ist es schon gelungen, sehr viele scharfe Probleme auf einer positiven Grundlage zu lösen.
(12); 121. Es gibt keine Garantie, dass die Gefahr auf Canterbury begrenzt ist… alle Neuseeländer müssen besonders wachsam sein», hieß es…
At the same time, the omission of parenthesis words: ‘moreover’ (2), ‘however’ (1), ‘en plus’ (4), ‘par suite’ (6), ‘folglich’ (9), ‘trotzden’ (10) would probably cause a visible modification of statements general semantic structure even in case of preserving their relative integrity.
For example: (1); 11. Now the economies of English-speaking countries stand at different stages of the cycle. …Despite periodic recessions or depressions, they have continued to grow over time.
(2); 21. Capital is also needed for salaries, credit extension to customers, advertising, insurance and many other operations. … financing is essential for growth and expansion of a company…
(3); 31. Horizontal mergers allow to secure low cost operation by realizing economies of scale in manufacture and distribution. … the combined organization may have access to technical and financial resources, previously not available.
(4); 41. Pour être efficace, il faut que les moyens soient doublés. … il vaudrait mieux augmenter le contrôle et adapter les textes, dépassés par les nouvelles technologies.
(5); 51. Les transformations que la France a connues durant les années 60-80 ont entraîné des réformes profondes dans le domaine de l`enseignement. … les changements qui en découlent, maintiennent l`inégalité sociale.
(6); 61. Quant aux nouvelles technologies, elles nous astreignent à une temporalité assez brève. … le déréglement de la temporalité politique, économique devient une simple figure de la bêtise.
(9); 91. Universitäre Bildung gehörte nach Auffassung der meisten nicht dazu, … muss das System geändert werden.
(10); 101. Die Ermittler hätten das Gebäude nach neun Stunden wieder verlassen, meldete die Nachrichtenagentur Anadolu. … haben die nichts gefunden.
(12); 121. Es gibt keine Garantie, dass die Gefahr auf Canterbury begrenzt ist. … alle Neuseeländer müssen besonders wachsam sein», hieß es…
The functional differentiation of ‘transitions’ in above given examples becomes even more evident, if one takes into consideration their location in syntactic unities. It is known, that conjunctions can occupy a strictly fixed place corresponding to their utilitarian destination and thus any attempt to move them into some other position will cause an obvious sense violation. For example: (8); 82. Tout еst affaire de perspectives de commerce, on peut observer à la fois car l`augmentation des coûts de certaines dépenses contraintes, aussi la baisse mais des coûts de communication…
(12); 122. Es gibt keine Garantie, dass die Gefahr auf und Canterbury begrenzt ist… alle Neuseeländer müssen besonders wachsam sein», hieß es…
Moving the conjunction into the beginning of a phrase results in acquiring by it another functional charge – of a discourse-text connector with a previous context implied:
(11); 112. Deshalb die zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen des Landes versammeln um sich ständig ganze Reihen ihrer Anhänger, keine gleichgültigen Menschen, gerade ist es schon gelungen, sehr viele scharfe Probleme auf einer positiven Grundlage zu lösen…
In fact, any moving of parenthesis-adverbial words in the frame of given statements doesn`t cause violations of their general semantic integrity. For example:
(2); 22. Capital is also needed for salaries, credit extension to customers, advertising, insurance and many other operations. … financing is moreover essential for growth and expansion of a company…
(3); 32. Horizontal mergers frequently allow to secure low cost operation by realizing economies of scale in manufacture and distribution. … the combined organization may besides have access to technical and financial resources, previously not available.
(4); 42. Pour être efficace, il faut que les moyens soient doublés, …il vaudrait mieux en plus augmenter le contrôle et adapter les textes, dépassés par les nouvelles technologies.
Of course, these experimental data and results of multi-aspect analysis carried out show quite clearly real margins and points of different types parenthesis-modal discourse-text ‘transitions’ and grammar copulas possible semantic-functional interaction, manifested in the aspects of integration/differentiation.
In general, all this obviously proves the broadness of lexical-grammar parenthesis-modal discourse-text ‘transitions’ semantics, what allows them to play both the role of intra-phrasal copulas and sentence modifiers, bringing various lexical nuances into the total syntactic complexes meaning. Surely, it gives a real ground for stating their functional integration with ‘pure’ copulas by common meanings of ‘relativity’, ‘conjunction’ contained in the semantic complex. At the same time, they are obviously differentiated by the sign of lexical components presence/absence in general semantics. This also proves a real poly-functionality of parenthesis-modal conjunctive equivalents, permitting them to play the role of lexical intensifiers and discursive modal markers in the frame of syntactic complexes. Discourse-text ‘transitions’ of various genesis create a parallel gradation of reality assessments (degrees of reality) of a fact, exposed in each of complex syntactic units parts. They can be also treated as explicators of texts modal quality and most informative segments, capable of bearing the additional functional charge of actual segmentation means. Thus, one has an obvious reason to consider lexical-grammar connectives an open-bordered group of poly-semantic (functional) units with hybrid characteristics, localized at the crossing of ‘modality’, ‘adverbial’, ‘substantive’ fields and occupying a separate open micro-field adjacent to (micro)fields of conjunctions/conjunctive words. It is evident that the scope and frequency of parenthesis-modal ‘transitions’ use are stipulated by specific structural-compositional and stylistic features of discourse-texts in question.
References1. Arapoff N. The semantic role of sentence connectors in extra-sentence logical relationships// Tesol Quarterly. New York: Academic Press, 1998. Issue 2. P. 167-178.
2. Dyukanova N. English for economists. Moscow: Infra-M., 1998. P.178-245.
3. Hall P., Harriel M. Reference guide to grammar and usage. New Jersy: Englewood Cliffs, 1994. Issue 2. 568p.
4. Kulner F. Deutsch für das Studium. Freiburg, 2008. 276p.
5. Lebedeva M. The semantic and syntactic structure of a coherent text// Essays on text linguistics. Pyatigorsk: University Press, 2001. Issue 2. P.113-121.
6. Moeschler J. Causal, inferential and temporal connectives: Why ‘parce que’ is the only causal connective in French ?// Marqueurs discursifs et subjectivité. Rouen: Presses Universitaires de Rouen et du Havre, 2014. Vol.6. P.97-114.
7. Nedbailik S. On functional-semantic characteristics of parenthesis-adverbial discourse-text transitions of logical type in modern French and English// Ancient and New Romania (16). Saint-Petersburg: University Press, 2015. Issue 16. P.238-245.
8. Paris-Match. Paris, 2019. Vol. 9, 12. P.134 -167; P.112-173.
9. Pastukhova S. Consecutives in English languages and their functions in natural-scientific written style// Collection of scientific works. Pyatigorsk: University Press, 2001. Issue 4. P.173-180.
10. Pravikova L. Coherent aspects of oral and written discourse//Collection of scientific works. Pyatigorsk: University Press, 2001. Issue 4.P.181-189.
11. Zaitseva O. Adverbs functional characteristic in sentences and texts// Essays on text linguistics. Pyatigorsk: University Press, 2001. Issue 3. P.124-187.