Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Intercultural Approach of Professional Lexicon
.pdf
external functions of terms as linguistic signs, employed for the purposes of linguistic
signification of the conceptual content of academic concepts.
In this way, we look at the motivation of terms as representations of the attributes
of objects in a sign, as a multifaceted linguistic phenomenon, combining the mechanism
of conceptual extension in terms as linguistic signs, and also their systemic significancy.
The main function of motivation in terms is their ability to reflect the properties and
attributes of real-life facts and the facts of human cognition - in our research we assert
that it is the constancy of the function that allows research to be carried out on material in
contemporary multi-system languages.
Despite the attention now focussed on motivation in words and signs, much in this
area went unstudied for a long time. Renowned semasiologist S.Ullman has felt
compelled to admit that, 'The question of motivated and non-motivated words has now
been waiting several decades for its solution' (1962).
There is a kind of prejudice among linguists against studying motivation in words,
which has inhibited this research for some time. In their opinion, the motivation of
words does not play a conspicuous role in the functionality of language and so has no
scientific application. To substantiate this principled stance, scholars have argued that
alongside the concept of motivated words there is also the theory of de-etymologisation,
which argues that there is no need for its function in language (Zvegintsev, 1957:196).
The problem of motivation, originating within general linguistics, has become an
object of investigation in etymology, toponomastics, phraseology, synchronic
word-formation in lexicology (in the narrow sense of the word, including semasiology;
see the works of Wilhelm von Humboldt, A.Potebnja, S.Ullman, l.Moiseyev, l.Toroptsev,
K.A.Levkovskaya, V.Gak, l.Ulukhanov, and S.S.Maslova-Lashanskaya); and finally in
onomasiology, which developed the principle of nomination, and the method and
means of nomination so important to the linguistic theory of motivation (Gak,
A.A.Ufimtsev, V.Telia). For a long time the main focuses of linguistic studies in the 20th
century were held to be phonetics, morphology and syntaxis.
Contemporary linguistics marks a convergence and cooperation between various
academic disciplines. Both well-established and recently discovered linguistic
phenomena will always undergo rethinking according to new approaches, new aspects,
new trends in a given field. The same problems being mastered by a variety of linguistic
disciplines all require extrapolation and systemization.
As a result, we come across various phenomena with a single name, but which
acquire their own unique meanings in different academic disciplines. The phenomenon
of the motivation of terms as linguistic signs may be considered an example of such
phenomena. The common problems of motivation, its nature, its function in language
and speech, the correspondence between motivational
form and content, the common typology in the motivation of terms, its cooperation with
various levels and planes of linguistic structure etc. are being investigated as one of the
pressing problems of terminology.
Of all the Russian language reference books and study aids, only three of them
contain terms connected with the phenomenon of the motivation of words:
мотивированный (motivated); мотивированное слово (motivated word); мотивирующее
слово (motivating word); мотивация имплицитная (implicit motivation); внутренняя форма
слова (internal form of a word). These are: The Dictionary of Linguistic Terms by
O.S.Akhmanova (1966); The Reference Dictionary by D.E.Rosenthal and M.A.Temikhova;
and An Introduction to The Study of Language by Y.S.Maslova. In The Language Studies
Dictionary, published by Kazakh scholars and edited by E.D.Suleimenova (1998:232), we
find a more extensive definition of motivology as a branch of lexicology and the
signification of its terminological system: мотив (motive); мотивема (motiveme);
мотивация (motivation).
Motivation is a fundamental part of linguistic studies. The question 'why do we call
it that?' is one people have been asking - and trying to answer - from time immemorial.
The birth of this new movement in linguistics is by now well established. Motivology is
an independent academic discipline. It is the study of the motives of nomination and has
its own scientific apparatus, its own specialised area of research, its own methods of
analysis, its own aims and its own problems, separating it from the s tudy closest to it that of etymology. Motivology is the division of linguistics which studies the
phenomenon of motivation in words.
The essence of the phenomenon of motivation in words consists of motivated words
and motivational relationships, representing a linguistic universal. 'No languages exist
in which nothing is motivated' (de Saussure).
Given that motivology is a branch of linguistics, and that linguistics takes language
to be a universal property of human beings, any definition of motivation should start by
looking at the connection between language and human consciousness, thought and
psychic life; and in what conditions human culture has developed. Equally important in
defining motivation is the role of the language user, because it is our linguistic
consciousness that enables us to conceptualize the lexical items of language, their
connections and correlations; their associations by similarity, contiguity, opposition etc.
In contemporary linguistics, there are numerous definitions for the motivation of
words: 'The motivation of the content of words is connected with the understanding of
their structure, with active consciousness of the semantic relationships between the
verbal elements of a linguistic system' (Vinogradov, 1947); 'The motivation of a word is
normally understood to mean the phenomenon, whereby the form and content of a
word (its naming) come about in a given language as conditioned by other existing
phenomena' (Dokulil,
1967:208); 'Derivational connection may be interpreted as motivation' (Shmelev,
1973:196); 'Motivation is defined as the causal connection between a sound and a
thought; between the sound and the meaning of a word' (Gak, 1977:34).
In their definitions of motivation, Vinogradov and Dokulil take into account the
factors of systemicity and the linguistic consciousness of the language user. Gak's
definition observes a rational connection between sound and meaning. But in these
definitions there is no mention of the ontological nature of motivation (what is it?
phenomenon? connection? causation?); they do not elaborate on exactly what it is that
makes possible the full derivation of a word's meaning. Only one type of correlation in
words is named: 'derivational connection'.
O.l.Blinova gives the following definition: 'The motivation of a word is normally
understood to mean the structural-semantic property of a word that enables us to
identify a rational connection between the word's meaning and its aural articulation on
the basis of its lexical and structural correlations' (1984:16). However, it is our contention
that structural correlation is not only characteristic for the secondary meanings
produced by words (their lexical-semantic alternatives). Structural correlation may also
be represented by semantic structure.
The problems of motivation, of the selection of attributes (motives) in the naming of
objects, and the phenomena of reality, occupy a central place in the theory of
nomination, which is essentially a product of onomasiology. 'The study of names, the
nature of naming, the properties of signification and their types is called onomasiology'
(Mathesias 1967:228). The fundamental aim of onomasiology is to create a theory of
nomination, and its main focuses are 'the study of the properties and possibilities of
naming separate elements' (ibid); and 'the realisation of the requirements in new
namings at word level' (Toroptsev, 1970:3). In examining the theoretical prerequisites of
the theory of nomination, we must remember that for each name there is a concept, and
the concept is formed on the basis of a full evaluation of the object. That is to say, the
theory of onomasiology takes the concept as a starting point and investigates by which
different attributes the appearance of this concept may be motivated. On the one hand,
studying the plurality of expressions which form a whole leads us to the examination of
semantically connected expressions of structural concepts and onomasiology. On the
other hand, studying the signification of a particular concept calls for a pragmatic
perspective to onomasiology, demonstrating how a distinct motive is selected for the
motivation of a distinct concept or referent. The differences between the structural and
pragmatic concepts of onomasiology may be equated with the differences between the
investigation of structure and application. The structural approach explains the selection
that occurs between a set of correlating expressions and clarifies what motive defines the
selection of one alternative or the other.
Expiormg motivology is important to the study of onomasiology, in that IL paves the
way to lexicographical research, because the process of lexical selection is defined by
these semasiological and onomasiological aspects. The concept of motivation is crucial
here. Lexemes may be motivated either from a semantic or an onomasiological point of
view. From a semasiological point of view, constructions are motivated if the idea which
needs to be expressed corresponds to the number of concepts in the construction. From
an onomasiological point of view, the selection of a defined construction is motivated if
it is plausible, which is to say singular and prototypical.
The concept of the motivation of terms is one of the central concepts in the theory of
motivation. The currency of any terminological thesis involving the metalinguistic
concept of motivation is determined by the subject of the academic study, within which
the definition is given. Diachronic word formation - the study of the laws and properties
of word formation - has its own definition of motivation by way of a correlation between
producer and derivative: 'motivation is the determination of meaning by the meaning of
another word, from which it is formed' (Moiseev, 1963:128). But not all motivated terms
can properly be considered to be formed from other words. Some terms, as
demonstrated above, are formed of term-elements. For synchronic word formation - the
study of the system of modelling secondary units of nomination - 'word forming
motivation is the relationship between two words with the same root' (Telia, 1977:108);
motivation means drawing out the meaning of a motivated derivative from the meaning
of a motivating producer.
Toroptsev understood motivation to mean 'the consciousness of the rational
connection between meaning and aural articulation; the expression of that meaning'
(1964:162-163). Words are declared motivational only where the connection between
their meaning and sound has a rational character. M.A.Cherkasskiy believed the notion
motivated applied to 'a linguistic sign in which some properties are manifested by their
realisation through nomination, which is to say the correlation of a given sign to a given
object-denotatum.'
It becomes important to stress the interpretation of the concept of motivation in the
theory of onomasiology. In onomasiology - the study of the principles and rules of the
nomination of objects and the expression of concepts by the lexical and
lexico-phraseological properties of language - motivation is presented as the result of a
process of creating a motivated form of naming on the basis of a motivated attribute.
The motivation of words depends not only on the interrelation between the form
and substance of a sign, but also on the connection with other items in terms of the
substance of the whole language, because the creation of each new linguistic sign is
conditioned by the state of the whole language system (Kiak, 1988:29, 40, 65).
The problem of the motivation of linguistic phenomena is offset by their
arbitrariness. Motivation and arbitrariness are the inherent properties of words which
guarantee their creation and functionality. Motivated forms are possible only because
there are also non-motivated forms. The presence of motivated and non-motivated
words in language is the first semantic universal: 'all languages are seen to contain both
arbitrary and motivated words in varying proportions, which will depend on a number
of factors, linguistic, cultural and social' (Ullman).
Z.B.Berketov considers motivation to be an existing property of the lexicographical
definition of any linguistic item and considers motivation to be the most characteristic
aspect of a group of words, when other properties of vocabulary like synoymy,
antonymy, and homonymy, are also found in other spheres of language (1992:196). The
Kazakh scholar M.M.Kopilenko made a substantial contribution to the study of
motivation, in his theory concerning linguistic interpretation by humans, a complex
study of the biological, psychological and social foundations of language, concluding
that this was one of the most important attributes of human beings - 'the universal
language-creating beginnings of human beings' as von Humboldt put it. For him,
motivation is an ontological property of vocabulary, borne of the human psyche as it
strives to explain all names. But motivational connections elude him. Motivated words
are comprehensible to language users, they understand not only what they signify, but
how they came into being. Motivating and motivation are opposed to arbitrariness -
where no attribute of an object is reflected in its name. Investigating studies on the
motives of nomination, Kopilenko draws a line between the synchronic concept of
motivation, and the diachronic concept of motivating. For example, motivating once
affected the lexeme мешок (a sack or bag) and it was motivated for as long as language
users sensed its connection with the lexeme мех (a wine-skin; мешок was the diminutive
of мех, so it meant 'a small wine-skin'). This lexeme has now lost its motivation, which is
restored to its past existence only through etymological analysis (Kopilenko, 1996:3-16).
In this way, the motivation of terms must always be looked at synchronically.
M.M.Ginatullin remarks that 'Motivating is a linguistic phenomenon relating to a past
act reflecting an attribute of the object in its name by means of language. Motivation
characterises the contemporary use of lexical items and may not be apparent' (1986:26).
This striving to expand the borders of research on motivology into other fields such as
sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and culturology, is reflected in the following
statement by Ginatullin: '[...] if etymology is a reliable instrument for the study of the
interrelationships of peoples, the users of ancient languages and the history of their
material culture, then motivology is indispensable for researching their outlooks,
psychology and spiritual life' (1989:108).
An important issue in motivation is the influence of the selection criteria applied in
nomination, and particularly in the study of motivation in words
96
wmcn came into being a long time ago and continue to function in the contemporary
language system.
However the opinions of researchers differ on the point of the existence and
non-existence of the precise attribute of an object which forms the basis for its name.
M.M.Zakharova writes that '[...] according to their degree of significance, the
attributes which form the basis of a name may be existent or non-existent' (1973:28).
Zakharova's viewpoint does not take into account that the existence of any given
attribute may change with time.
Moiseev adds that 'existence cannot be spoken about in general terms, but only
from the point of view of a given human collective, which creates its own names for the
phenomena of reality, based on the distinctive situation and purposes of naming'
(1963:19). In our research we will adhere to this position on the existence of the attributes
of objects in naming. In this way, we believe that the moment a name comes into being it
is motivated by an attribute, represented by a given collective at a given historical time
as existent, but in the long term many words, while remaining motivated, have merely
ceased to realise the motivated existent attribute of their object.
Thus the existence of motivation in words in each historical moment in the life of a
given collective must be individually defined. The ontological justification for picking
out one particular attribute in the intellectual manufacture of concepts is a purposeful
activity, which determines the motive for creating a name.
Scholars researching semantics and word-formation in individual lexical groups of
words come at the problem from different angles.
M.l.Litvinov, analysing hunting and craft terminology found in the dictionary of
V.Dal, singles out those words which are motivated in the course of 'direct apprehension
and intellectualisation' of an attribute of an object, and words which are motivated in the
course of 'studied apprehension of an attribute of an object' (Litvinov, 1955:6).
E.A.Natanson (1969:51) draws on terms of transparent semantics, and terms of
camouflaged semantics (semantics is understood as a form of motivation).
Other researchers like Toroptsev distinguish between weak and strong motivation.
'Strong motivation occurs in derivative words with complementary aural articulation';
'Weak motivation is what characterises the connection between meaning and sound in
derivative lexical items and derivative supporting words in the lexical nesting with an
identical sound.' As we can see, Toroptsev bases his description of types of motivation
on the types of word-forming connections which interest him.
In contemporary linguistics the question of the types and forms of motivation
remains open to debate. From the point of view of lexicology and onomasiology, Blinova
picks out the following types of motivated words
derived from the basic concepts of motivation theory: 1. relative motivation, defined by
the the relationship of lexical items; 2. absolute motivation, connected with
onomatopoeia and reflecting the sounds of animate and inanimate phenomena in
nature; 3. lexical motivation, as the result of motivation of a given word by a lexical item
with the same root (1984:18).
There are several approaches to defining different kinds of motivation. Toroptsev
details three kinds of motivation: 1. imitative; 2. morphological; 3. semantic.
V.V.Levitsky highlights semantic motivation (1965). T.G.Kiak differentiates between
motivation in language and speech (1988).
From the above we get a general picture of the forms of motivation. Phonetically
motivated words normally imitate the noises from the realia around us, for example
удары (beats), треск (crackle), хруст (crunch), шепот (whisper), жужжание (humming).
Morphological motivation is defined principally in the word-forming model of a lexical
item. Semantic motivation is the result of the interrelation between word-forming forms
and their foundation, between new and previous meanings, between various
modifications of the internal form. Substantive (intentional) motivation refers to the
structural-semantic characteristics of a lexical item, which explains through language the
rational lexico-semantic connection between the meaning and internal form of a given
item. Substantive motivation is an important kind of motivation, since one of the
conditions of linguistic comprehension is this idea that motivation should where
possible not be external and conditional, but internal and logical, that it should reveal
the essence of the concept itself. This requirement is particularly relevant to academic
terminology.
Researchers are particularly drawn to the question of the internal form of a word.
The concept of the internal form of words was first introduced by von Humboldt,
referring to the aural and internal form not of the word, but of language as a whole: 'The
internal form is that which elevates articulated sounds to the expression of thought,
captured in the sum of all its connections and its systematic character' (1984:74)
But von Humbolt's theory also distinguishes the internal form of the separate
phenomena of language - word compositions, expressions, separate words. He did not
distinguish the internal form of language as merely an individual characteristic, realized
in speech. He located the originality of the internal form in the possibility of the
signification of concepts and synchronisation between the internal and aural forms of a
word (1984).
Given that it takes account of both individual 'readings' of the world and those of
national groups, the internal form must be made from separate structural elements. The
first step on this ladder is formed of the internal form of words. According to Gak, 'the
internal form is that which lies at the basis of
naming' (1977:21).
Gak also emphasises the dialectic interconnection of the subjective and
objective in the act of nomination through a selected attribute, which becomes the basis
for the naming of an object, because the subjective relationship of the language user to
the named thing plays a significant role, and therefore naming is a microcosm of the
subjective formation of the objective world.
According to Vinogradov, it is possible to grasp this isolated form only by looking
at the material and spiritual culture, the language system, in the context of which a
given word was invented or came into being (1947).
As mentioned above, Potebnja gives an exposition of the theory on internal form.
He called the internal form 'the closest etymological meaning'; 'in words we differentiate
between the external form, which is to say the articulation of sounds, meaning
objectified by sound, and the internal form or the closest etymological meaning of a
word, the property which expresses meaning' (1973:68).
Near etymological meaning is created by the active word-forming connections of
derivative words. For example, the near etymological meaning of the Russian
nosological item оспа (variola) is 'a term relating to a disease'. Far etymological meaning is the
very earliest motivation of the root of the word; the meaning is hidden in time from
non-specialists (оспа, from the Common Slavonic o-sbp-a, and the Old Slavonic
'сыпать', literally 'to pour out').
The near etymological meaning of the Russian чахотка (consumption) is 'a
phenomenon relating to disease.' The far etymological meaning comes from the Old
Slavonic исчезнуть (to disappear).
For the Kazakh шешек (in Russian оспа; in English variola) the near etymological
meaning is 'disease', and the far etymological meaning is 'a small flower'.
When he spoke about near etymological meaning, Potebnja meant the possibility of
examining word formation synchronically, without the need to account for its whole
etymology.
'The work of the etymologist ends where the force of motivation begins' (Kopilenko,
1996). At the definitive level the internal form may have as its prerequisite the
uncovering of the etymological meaning corresponding to the item, that is characteristic
of non-derivative items such as the common Russian terms стол (table) and дом (house),
and the veterinary terms сап (malleus), and мыт (adenitis).
Kiak considers the internal form to be the basis of the motivation of lexical items:
'The internal form is the conceptual form, abstracted and reflected in the form of the
apperceptive representation of one or several existing attributes of a denotatum, named
and fixed in the memory of the language user, conditioned by the morphological
structure of the word or expression' (1988:24).
The motivological analysis of lexical items could not exist without the internal form
of words, because 'the internal form is the form which lies at the heart of naming.'
Accepting the definition of the motivation of words adopted by
ine Kazakh scholars Kopilenko and Ginatullin in their research into the theory of
motivation of linguistic signs, as an act of the reflection of an object in its naming by
means of language, we must consider internal form in terms of the act of the reflection of
an attribute of an object in its naming, following a past representation of the world, by
the language user's projection of an object.
The main distinction between internal form and etymology is that etymology is
studied from a position of hypostasis to the synchronic state of lexical value, while
internal form, having immanence in all words, is not always concealed from the
language user.
The internal form lies at the very heart of a concept. Through the internal form of a
word, language users pick out and then set apart a distinctive attribute from the lexical
value in its internal form, constructing it from the meaning that they understand. In this
way, the most relevant value is picked out from all the corresponding values. We see
this in the internal form of non-derivative items.
For example, the internal form of the Russian word мыт (adenitis) is more or less
unified for the communicants, representing as it does one or several existing attributes,
which enter into the corresponding lexical value of the definition. Мыт (adenitis) is a
disease. It is unlikely to bring to mind the idea of paying a toll at a tollgate. But in
Ancient Rus, the word мыто meant a toll.
The internal form is an intermediary between the lexical value and the material
linguistic body of the word. Potebnja writes that the internal form gives direction to the
thought of the listener, gives it a way of developing meaning, and does not put limits on
its comprehension (1960:122). Internal form is the trace of a word left on human
memory.
A.A.Reformatsky appears to be fully justified in his claim that internal form is a
systemic characteristic of words and word-groups, the interconnection of the
understanding of a whole along with its constituent parts: it is impossible to understand
the whole without knowing its constituent parts, but it is likewise impossible to
interpret the constituent parts without understanding the whole (1968:103-125).
The process of motivation is brought about not by the meaning, but the naming of
the internal form.
Motivation in naming must be distinguished from the meaning of a word. The
motive serves as a link between the form and content of a sign. Internal form is a
necessary semantic characteristic of words, while motivation is not characterised by any
lexical item.
So internal form is an agent of the process of motivation in words; it is a regular
characteristic of words; a stable property of words. It may offer the ability to uncover the
etymology of linguistic items.
And so it seems appropriate to first examine the differences between motivation
and word-formation.
There are two levels of articulation in language - the structural-semantic and
structural-functional. Units of motivation are related to the structural-functional level,
while morphemes operate on the structural-semantic level.
The difference between motivation and word-formation is that the separate
elements of a motivational word-forming structure perform different functions in
relation to the whole that is the motivated word (motivatum). As a result the motivatum
will be presented and modelled differently, if at the point of constructing the whole a
particular element is taken.
In word-formation, which looks at the motivatum 'from left to right', which is to say
based on the formant that captures the novelty that distinguishes the motivatum from
the motivator, motivation is a component of the word-forming process (dynamic
word-formation) or a variable component of the statistical model.
The formation of novelty in motivation occurs at a particular point in the
functionality and development of a defined lexical item. The presence in a motivated
word of something which complements the motivator provides a foundation for the
former as a variant form of the latter. The motivated word is the same as the motivator,
only in the new syntagmatic environment when used in its secondary nominative
function. In the motivational word, structure is taken on by the motivator or motivating
base. That said, there is effectively no research into what form the formant takes. The
motivational approach allows us to include motivated words in the broad sphere of
variation in lexical items. If a moment of novelty stands out particularly prominently in
word-formation, then word-formation adds an affix on the basis of its significancy in
generating a new thought. Motivology stresses that novelty cannot arise ex nihilo, rather
it is just a new interpretation, the new use of something already familiar. The
motivological approach to the formal-syntactical structure of the motivator illustrates
that in language there are no stimulating means of expressing the familiar in the
motivatum. Motivating bases are in essence those same lexical items, but which appear
in the secondary functions and do not violate their substantive identity. The possibility
of several mutations (a digression from the paradigm) does not detach the motivating
base from the original lexical item.
The special characteristics of the motivological modelling of motivatums exist at
various levels of abstraction. The motivational field is a set of motivating bases with a
defined lexical value such as a defining motivating attribute, of which the internal
organization may be located if its core is taken to be the foundations, the representative
motivators, the most suitable reflective characteristics of the motivated attribute
(semantic criteria) or the most widely used (functional criteria).
The continuation of this line of abstraction leads to motivational types, orders,
categories: naming by colour, by external appearance, by the intrinsic form of the object.
There are established terms for signifying given concepts: the principle of motivation,
the property of motivation, the semantic model and
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]