Attribute in modern english

1.2. Contrary to the common belief that all attributes
Contrary to the common belief that all attributes denoting a change of state belong to one and the same uniform class, we strongly defend in the present paper the existence of two distinct syntactic-semantic kinds of change of state attributes in the English language: on the one hand, those that complement the aspectual variants of the semantically vacuous copula be; and, on the other hand, those that combine with lexically autonomous verbs and are, therefore, optional for the grammaticality of the construction. Due to the markedly different behaviour they exhibit, we are going to distinguish both classes of attributes from a terminological point of view: we will call the members of the former group 'change of state attributes', strictly speaking, and those of the latter type, resultative attributes. To prove our hypothesis, we are going to base our study mainly on the nature of the verbal constituent that surfaces in the attributive structure and, as a consequence, on the syntactic and semantic relation it maintains with the attribute under discussion.
Chapter 2. Semantic classification of attributive parteras
Syntactic relation r. Syntactic units also have a syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationship in the structure of the system as a language unit.
A paradigmatic attitude. The mutual associative relationship of syntactic compounds, independent of space and time, is considered a paradigmatic relationship. Syntactic units that are mutually associated on a certain basis are considered members of a paradigm. The generalization of the members of the paradigm creates a certain generalization, a category. A generality and specificity relationship exists between the members of a paradigm and a unit. Any generality (invariant) is manifested through particularities (variants). So the form of manifestation of generality is particularity.

Paradigmatic relationship, like syntagmatic relationship, is divided into substantive and formal paradigmatic relationships.

A substantive paradigmatic attitude. A syntactic unit has an invariant meaning consisting of two or more options - a unit of meanings.
The relationship of the variant meanings of the invariant meaning expressed by a certain syntactic unit forms the semantic paradigm of this syntactic unit. For example, the subject invariant meaning expressed by possessor consists of the following variant meaning unit:
Agent (producer of the action): The child is playing Paciens (subject affected by the agent): The mother played with her child.
Subject of quantity: Water from the knee, etc. Syntactic Ambiguity Syntactic homonymy phenomena involve meaningful paradigmatic relations.
Formative paradigmatic relation. Syntactic units actually appear in several speech forms. Any syntactic unit reflects the dialectic of essence and event, generality and particularity through its division into language and speech units. behind every specific phrase or sentence lies some linguistic essence. For example, the clear speech phrase "slicks my faces" reflects the grammatical-semantic relationship of two word forms: a third person singular past tense verb - "slicks" (dominant part) and a noun in the plural form (subordinate part). But other syntactic devices can be seen behind this connection. The way to search for it requires the summarization of specific speech phenomena based on the analysis in the paradigmatic aspect (on the basis of association). And generalization takes us from speech phenomena to language phenomena. This is done in two steps.
At the first stage, based on changing the form of the word stroking within this combination without violating the syntactic rule (stroking my face, stroking my face, stroking my face, etc.) or changing the form of the subordinate part (stroking my face), it is known that , on the basis of a series of speech combinations of two word forms, a pattern of combination of a certain word form (silab-syipalamaq) with a certain form of another word (my faces) (tushum or exit agreement) is formed.
If we compare this combination, on the one hand, with compounds such as my hair (stroking my hair), my head (stroking my head), and on the other hand, my face (scratching my face, looking at my face), the above example of the combination only includes my face and A number of real combinations can be formed based on a number of other words, not only specific to siypaladi words, but through a generalized pattern. An important feature of this phrase pattern is that the governing part is represented by a transitive verb, and the subordinate part is represented by a noun in the accusative case.
Thus, at the second stage of the analysis, a generalized sample of compounds is generated.
A generalized pattern exists not only in the context of word combinations, but also in the context of sentences and texts.
A generalized pattern of syntactic units is language units, and their specific realization based on this generalized pattern is speech units.
Syntagmatic relation. The sequential relationship of a particular syntactic unit with another syntactic unit forms a syntagmatic relationship.
Since the syntactic unit is a whole consisting of form and content as a high-level unit in the structure of the language system, the syntagmatic relationship between the syntactic units also has a dual nature: a) formal syntagmatic relationship; b) meaningful syntagmatic relation.
Formal syntagmatic relation. The sequential relationship of a certain syntactic form (the form of a sentence) with another syntactic form is considered a formal syntagmatic relationship.
In traditional linguistics, the terms "syntactic relationship" and "syntactic communication" are distinguished. The term "syntactic relation" means the substantive syntagmatic relation between syntactic units, and the term syntactic relation means the expressive side of the formal syntagmatic relation.
Any formal syntagmatic relation expresses a certain substantive syntagmatic relation, and the unity of these two relations reflects the dialectic of form and content. For example, the syntactic device I came, consisting of the formal relation of the possessor and participle, is the content of the subject and the predicate.