Semantic Classification of Adverbial Phraseological Units of the Russian Language

In the article, the author makes an attempt to semantic classification of adverbial phraseological units of the Russian language by applying the method of component analysis.

IJSSHR, Volume 04 Issue 12 December 2021 www.ijsshr.in Page 3996 stylistic seme, evaluative seme and etc. When studying the APU of the Russian language, we, as a rule, proceed from the first component -the actual meaning of the phraseological unit. APU, as vocabulary units of a language, have much in common with the words that identify them. But a careful comparison of the meanings expressed by them will reveal that they also have significant differences. Such a distinctive feature is that in the semantic structure of APU, as it were, two semes coexist, one of which is a carrier of material, material meaning, and the other only expresses an additional, additional shade of meaning such as: "very", "completely", "absolutely", "too", "finally", "extremely", which can only indicate the highest, extreme degree of the manifested feature, the action inherent in its main meaningful seme. Let's compare: quickly (normal)vo vse lopotki / slomya golovu (very fast) or a little (normal)kot naplakal/ s gulkin nos (very little).
From the point of view of the internal content of phraseological units belonging to the category of adverbial ones, as a rule, consist of at least three elements: seme of material content, categorical seme, reinforcing seme. Moreover, the latter only enhances the meaning expressed by this phraseological unit, contained in its material content seme, which also performs a semantic distinctive function, and the amplifying seme serves for the generalized name of this phraseological and grammatical category. For example, such APU: "cherez pen kolodu, ispokon vekov, po-tshuchemu veleniyu, veroy i pravdoy, na ves narod, do poteri soznaniyai" among many others -an intensifying shade of meaning is not particularly noted in phraseological dictionaries. But if you take a closer look at their semantic structure, you will find that in these phraseological units there is an amplifying seme. In the semantic classification of APU, we rely only on the seme of material meaning, since only it carries semantic distinctive features that make it possible to distinguish the phraseological unit, in the semantic structure of which it participates, from other units of the class under consideration.
However, the quantitative composition of semes in the semantic structure of APU is not limited to the above-considered elementary units of meanings. Within one sememe, there are also semes that allow them to be grouped into PSG, subgroups and microgroups. For example, in units like: kak svoi pyat paltsev; kak na korove sedlo; vo vse glaza; kraem glaza; ne za strax, a za sovest; cherez pen kolodu; kak ptisa nebesnaya; ne k shube rukavi -there is such an element of meaning that allows them to be combined into one group, although each of the AFUs presented has a differential seme characteristic only of it: "good", "bad", "attentively", "inattentively", "carefully", "carelessly" , "arranged", "unsettled", etc. Consolidation in the PSG, therefore, is carried out at a fairly general level.
By PSG, we mean such a union of APU, which is subsumed under some archiseme, enclosed in one way or another in each of the units assigned to it. In total, we distinguish 8 PSGs with a seme of real meaning, each of which has a common name with the category that is customary to denote adverbial lexemes [2,67]. When assigning APU according to semantic groups, a significant role is assigned to its dictionary definition; in part, questions that have a categorical feature are also used (for example: when? Since when? -with a temporal meaning; where, from where? -with a spatial meaning, etc.).
At the next stage of the semantic classification of the APU of the studied languages, the meanings of a narrower range of units are detailed on the basis of the allocation of a less abstract seme (macroseme) separately in each of the previously established PSGs.
APU with the macro-element "proper quality", in turn, depending on the semantics expressed by them, can be represented as an opposition of two specific semantic real meanings: "good" -"bad" (kak nado -Bod znaet kak). However, not all phraseological units of the type under consideration can be summed up under this opposition. There is also such APUs that expresses relations that are neutral from the point of view of a qualitative assessment of the action: seredina na polovinu, ni shatka ni valko, tak sebe and etc.
The semantic classification of the APU of the Russian language is built according to the following scheme: a border is drawn between the phraseological parts of speech, as a result of which the quantitative composition of the APU is established; amplifying phraseological units are delimited, as a result of which only units remain in the research field, which express the real value; the latter, by identifying the seed composition, are combined into 8 PSGs based on the archiseme, which at this stage has a high degree of abstraction; at the second stage, each FSH is delimited into separate subgroups based on the macroseme, which therefore has a large number of semantic features; at the third stage, within each subgroup, such types of APU are distinguished, which have a common seme of material meaning (the seme of the third degree); each seme of the third degree, as a rule, is built on the opposition of the meanings of two specific semes of material meaning (seme of the fourth degree); in the subgroups identified on the basis of semes of material meaning (seme-3 and seme-4), APUs are established that are in synonymous and antonymic relations, synonymous-antonymic series are determined.

CONCLUSION
Thus, the study of the semantics of phraseological units requires a multifaceted, comprehensive approach, since its content side is hidden from direct observation; moreover, their general integral meaning is not motivated by its constituent components, and the categorical meaning of phraseological units quite often does not correspond to the external grammatical form. All this, of course, makes it difficult to assimilate them not only for representatives of other nationalities, but also for the native speakers themselves.