{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014563106796116505, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.696750902527076, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Meaning of Plurality in Voice and Aspectual Constructions (Based on the Material of the Yakut Language)

The article is devoted to the functional-semantic analysis of the Yakut predicative constructions which are derived from verb stems in the form of comitative-reciprocal voice and frequentative aspect. Yakut verb forms under discussion, when expressing the categories of reciprocity and distributivity, fall into the functional-semantic field of plurality, in connection with which the problem of intersecting fields and of the interaction of semantic categories within a certain field inevitably arises. The analysis demonstrated that the difference between distributive constructions and reciprocal constructions in the Yakut language consists, first of all, in their content: the semantic invariant for the former is the multiplicity of the action itself whereas for the latter type it is the multiplicity of participants in the action. Objective distributive constructions, as a rule, have three arguments: apart from the agent and patient arguments they also contain an additional object argument which denotes the goal of the action. In reciprocal constructions indicating this participant of the situation is not obligatory. Furthermore, reciprocal and distributive constructions are formed on the basis of verbs which belong to different semantic groups. The majority of indicated verbs represent voice forms derived from the same stem and imply action performed on something plural or something consisting of many parts. Herewith, Yakut reciprocal and distributive constructions are characterized by nearly the same set of group arguments. However, the character of the group argument is particularly important for constructions with distributive content, in reciprocal constructions arguments are almost always singular animate objects.