Summary

To investigate language ontology is possible in different ways: its composition, origin, teleological function, inventory, etc. But in all cases, irrespective of the fact to what period of language functioning the object in question relates we cannot but use the elements of diachronic analysis in order to show the character, of both intra- and extralinguistic factors which gave rise to structural or semantic transformation of the object in question. To ignore the systemic organization of language is hardly possible: no change in it can take place independently of a system. Moreover, language is a historical category and the more developed a language is the more systemic forms it finds in its composition.

Seminar 4.

Topics for comprehension check and class discussion:

1.Epistemological instrument for language study;

2.Diachtony/Synchrony in the light of language ontology;

3. The essence of a notion’synchrony’ in accordance with Saussure’s position;

4. The essence of a notion’diachrony’ in accordance with Saussure’s position ;

5. Language changes: characteristic features;

6. Language systemic study;

7. Synchronic length in relation to the historical continuum of language;

8.Interaction of diachronic and synchronic methods in analysis of language facts.

Lecture 5. The ontological properties of language.

Lead-in: The lecture, presented to your attention, describes the main principles of ontological approach to language analysis, taking into consideration paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties of language. First here is given a notion of a paradigm as a unit of a language system and described essential features of its structure.The types of paradigmatic analysis are illustrated on the lexicon. Then follows the descripton of a syntagm as a speech unit, its structure and the main types of syntagmatic relations.

Key-words: paradigm, paradigmatic relations(PRs), paradigmatic analysis, polysemy, homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hyperonymy, relations of inclusion, overlapping, complementation, contiguity, syntagma, syntagmatic relations(SRs), linearity, distributional analysis; paradigmatic systems; invariant feature;

The main theoretical positions of a lecture:

1. Systemic characteristics of a language;

2. Paradigm and its structure;

3. The essential features of paradigmatic relations.

4. The theory on semantic fields by J.Trier: the main notions.

5. Traditional systemic analysis of the lexicon: the main groups.

6. The relations of polysemy.

7. The relations of synonymy

8. The relations of antonymy

9. The relations of homonymy

10. The relations of hyperonymy

11. E. Nida and his vision of a word meaning.

12. The essential types of related meanings in a componential analysis by E. Nida.

13 The relations of inclusion.

14 The relations of overlapping.

15. The relations of complementation.

16. The relations of contiguity;

17. Syntagma and its structure;

18. The main factors providing syntagmatic relations;

19. The notion of relative semantics;

20. Distributional analysis and its essence;

21. Contrast and parallelism as the systemic properties of a linguistic sign;

22.The essence of paradigmatic analysis;

23. Relations of impendence/dependence/ interdependence.

Part 1. The principles of paradigmatic analysis.

§1. The system of language displays systemic characteristics in the mode of language organization. The ‘system’ is a synthesizing notion which implies that a complex object is the whole made up of separate parts. The elements of a system are the constituents of the multitude. As the members of a given system they possess an invariant meaning - some potential function, either semantic or structural or grammatical, common for all these members, so we cannot regard the attribute ‘green’ among ‘kind’, ‘good’ or ‘nice’ but ’red’, ‘white’, ‘black’ etc.. By other words the elements have no value apart from a system and can be conceived only through the systemic relations of other elements in a system known in linguistics as a paradigm.

1.1. As any systemic organization any paradigm of language has ‘the core’ and ‘the periphery’, what is axiomatic for all paradigmatic systems whatever linguistic status the elements constituting them have. The core is represented by the set of those elements which possess the typologically differential features of the elements of a given system. The peripheral elements may not display all differential features of a given system but be migrants to other paradigmatic classes. On a large scale, for instance, Standard English makes the core of Modern English Language system while different cases of dialect, slang, colloquial usage are its periphery. Every language comprises two types of vocabulary and they also present the paradigms – formal and informal language.

1.2. The relations inside a paradigm are associative in nature and are called as paradigmatic relations / PRs / .All the elements of a class possess the class meaning - an invariant feature which is common for all and each members of a class. The elements which stand in paradigmatic relations cannot be used in an utterance at a time but they are relatively substitutable one for another in this or that position. These relations are based on a relative substitutability one for another. In speech the elements of a paradigm can display some specific, stylistic nuances of meaning pertaining to a paradigm.

1.3. Paradigmatic relations are associative in their nature and these associations may be of three types: semantic, functional and formal depending on a linguistic status of a unit in question Thus the words as semantic units may be organized into groups-paradigms on the basis of their systemic value: beautiful, gorgeous, nice, pretty, handsome, etc. Here is quiet evident that ‘nice’ as the most neutral unit can take the part of a systemic value. In case with functional units , as, say, the articles ‘a/an/, ‘the’ , demonstratives ‘this/that’, ‘these/those’, possessive pronouns and nouns the most feasible function - of determination – is expressed with the indefinite article ‘a ‘; and so on and so forth.

1.4. Paradigmatic relations as those of a system had been studied by different scientists. In this connection the same linguistic phenomenon took on different names. The most famous teaching , especially as regards lexicon, was that on semantic fields which does not contradict the general theoretical position on language systemic organization In the thirties of the XXth century a German scholar Jost Trier suggested that the words should be grouped together according to the fields of human interest and activity which they represent /‘Bedeutungfelder’/. Investigation of meaning should concentrate first of all on the interrelationship of terms appearing within a given group at a given historical period: the initial description should be synchronic. But synchronic description made at a later period may, and does so often, appeal to those shifts of meaning /and structure/ which took place in the interim. That is why Trier combines synchronic and diachronic analysis in semantics to correlate the changes in the meaning with the changes in internal structure of a word so as with the changes in culture of the people in general.

By such position he emphasized the necessity to take into account the fact of interrelationship of linguistic practice with social environment. No linguistic element in a language can appear in any and all positions because the language elements are restricted in distribution, i.e. the set of elements surrounding that in question. In such restrictions they exhibit varying degrees of contrast and parallelism, the quality known to us as the unity and opposition on the systemic elements. That means that in spite of the fact that elements are presented in the same paradigm they have their own task in the course of their actualization in speech acts:’ a nice girl’ is not the same stylistically as ‘nice lady’; or ‘gorgeous weather’ sounds more emphatically than ‘nice weather’.

1.5.The notion of a systemic value in a theory of semantic fields took on another name synonymic dominant. In other works the same n notion is designated as ‘ common denominator^’ though in general the name makes no difference because the essence of the notion is the same. But in all cases we are aware of a class meaning.

1.6. In present-day linguistics as most known types of paradigmatic analysis are traditional and componential.The first lies in distribution of units in question into the classes as regards their meaning. The essence ofcomponential analysis consists in systematic comparing and contrasting related words and summarizing their similarities and contrasts in the most economical way. The two approaches complement each other.

Paradigmatically a word is studied in its relationships with other words in a vocabulary system. A word may be studied in comparison with other words of similar meaning ( e.g. work, n. – labour, v.; to refuse, v. – to reject, v. – to decline, v.), of opposite meaning ( e.g. busy, adj. – idle, adj.; to accept, v. – to reject, v.), of different stylistic characteristics ( e.g. man, n. – chap, n. – bloke, n. – fellow, n. – guy, n.). Consequently, the main problems of paradigmatic studies make systemic relations of linguistic signs and their functional characteristics.

Traditionally lexical units enter into relationships of polysemy, homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hyperonymy /meronymy/. A little apart stand classes of paronyms and lexical variants as presenting examples of free variation in their sound or graphic form not contextually conditioned but optional with individual speaker as: whisky – whiskey; luxurious – luxuriant; affect - effect; alternate - alternative, etc.. In componential analysis these are , correspondingly, relations of contiguity, overlapping, complementation and inclusion.

1.6.1. Polysemy is characteristic of most words in many languages however structurally and typologically different they may be. But this systemic phenomenon is more characteristic of the English vocabulary as compared with Russian and Ukrainian due to its monosyllabic character which is one of the features pertaining to analytic languages and predominance of the root words. The greater the relative frequency of a word, the greater the number of variants that constitute its semantic structure, the more polysemantic it is. Some linguists refuse to recognize the fact of polysemy as the systemic property of a word on that ground only that in the text such a word may be interpreted differently. All the matter here in various degree of explication its meaning structure:

charge the line – attack enemy or rival / in football/;

charge the gun - to load with cartridge / to make a short/;

charge the bill – pay /without delay/;

charge him for pencil, newspaper etc.. - send smb. to do smth..

charge smb. – accuse, judge guilt, blame for

charge - to instruct /The judge charged the jury /gave some instructions/.

Though at first sight different in meaning, all the words keep in their semantic structure some implicit nuance of a force, directive command.

Polysemy is inherent in the very nature of words concepts. Exactly so as every object or action, or attribute has many features and nuances the concept imprint in human mind is generalization of all these features. Acquiring a new meaning a word as a rule retains the previous meaning with the primary meaning being the very first in a dictionary entry(see examples above). A great variety of usage for polysemantic words is conditioned by that implicational feature which allows to create new, derived meanings of words. From the following examples it is clear that ‘run’ has the general prevailing sense ‘ to copy out with smth., to manage to do smth.:

Can you run five-hundred yard dash?

Can you manipulate with this instrument?

Can you print this copy in the first run?

You’ve got a run in your stocking, Sheila!

It was a long run!

1.6.2.Homonymy. Systemic character of any language is not bound with relations of one type only. Homonymy is a wide-spread phenomenon when the words identical in sound and form are different in their origin, meaning and distribution / Greek ‘homos’ the same, ‘onoma’ name /:

run fast - run quickly

stand fast - stand firmly

‘A clean fast is better than dirty breakfast’ - бідний або чесний, беднее но честнее;

‘Who feasts until he is sick must fast until he is well;

Fasting comes after feasting.

Homonyms may be not full, so we distinguish three classes of them full homonyms:

ball / a round object for a game - ball – gathering of the people /have a ball - have a small talk;

bark – noise of a dog ; bark – sharp, explosive cries; bark – the skin of a tree; bark – a sailing ship.

homophones identical in sound and different in structure air – heir, arms – alms, by – buy, him – hymn, knight – night, knot – not, oar – or, peace – piece, reign – rain, scent – cent, steel – steal, story – storey, etc..: homographs, identical in structure but different in sound and spelling: bow ≠ bow, sewer ≠ sewer, wind ≠ wind. .

Analytic structure of Modern English and its monosyllabism are the factors providing the intensive development of homonymy in the language And this is quiet natural that increasing frequency of monosyllables leads to such a situation when the meaning of a new coinage is far from the original meaning though formerly it might be a metaphor but with the time flow its stylistic colour has vanished and there remained a word with a different meaning. The process when the semantic links between polysemantic units get lost is known in linguistics as split polysemy. But alongside with this phenomenon we must not overlook another source which provided a great number of homonyms in English vocabulary. As N. Arnold notes out of 2540 homonyms listed in The Oxford English dictionary only 7% are due to disintegration of polysemy, all the others are etymologically different.

1.6.3.. Synonymy. The more developed language the more it needs in a variety of words, denoting not only material, physical and spiritual entities but their nuances, character, style, etc.. That is why the most numerous group of words presenting paradigmatic relations is that of synonyms – words of near but not equal meaning, otherwise the need in them would not arise. As a rule they form stylistically multifarious units for different purposes of communication. If to take a group of words as ‘eat – devour – consume – gobble’ we may without mistake distinguish the synonymic dominant ‘ to eat’, valid for all cases of usage. All other words have some additional nuances in their meaning. Moreover, exactly these words being the peripheral as regards their disposition in a semantic field display also the property to migrate more readily to other semantic fields being simultaneously polysemantic as used in quiet a new distribution:

eat – take food into the mouth and swallow it. ‘

devour – eating hungrily or greedily, more often in reference to animals though in such usage sounds as stylistically neutral. The following example shows that being used in relation to a human the effect is dramatically different:

‘ I stopped at Sloan square to devour a sandwich ‘/J.Priestly/.

consume – eat and drink in more general meaning, more often official Cf.: ‘consumer’s basket’ – корзинка потребителя – кошик споживача;

gobble – eat hastily, noisily, in big chunks;

1.6.4. The relations of antonymy presuppose the opposite meanings of the words which at the same time share one and the same semantic field. This fact is supported by the possibility of antonyms to occupy the same syntactical position in a sentence:

There is so much bad in the best of us,

There is so much good in the worst of us.

1.6.5. The relations of hyperonymy/ hyponymy/ are based on a generic principle when a genus/ признак рода/ is presented with a hyperonym while all other words – hyponyms are hierarchically subordinate to it:

Furniture

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

table stool wardrobe bookcase bed etc.

1.6.6.The componential analysis studies the relations inside a paradigm and on this grounds is valuable in distinguishing paradigmatic essence – systemic value – for groups of linguistic elements.

Meaning, to Nida, one of the main exponents of componential analysis, is not something that words ‘have’ ; instead, the meaning of a word consists of the ‘set of ‘distinctive features ’which make possible certain types of reference and semantic analysis consisting in finding these features. These features may be common, shared, diagnostic, distinctive, contrastive, supplementary, connotative; in general, these are related meanings of the same lexical items. All of them present four basic ways in which the meanings of different lexical items in a domain can be related: inclusion, overlapping, complementation and contiguity.

1. In relations of Inclusion, schematically presented in concentric circles, the meaning of one word is included within a meaning of another. Such inclusions of meaning are extremely important in determining the significant features of meaning since each included meaning has all the features of the including meaning plus at least one more feature which serves to distinguish the more restricted area. For example, one of the meaning ‘gobble’ has the same feature of meaning ‘eat’, bur it also has added features of ‘hastiness’ and ‘eating in relatively large chunks’. Or in the English ‘chair, bench, stool, and hassock’ belong to the same domain and share same features, bur differ in more crucial respects.’

It seems logical to conclude that the bigger area of meaning the more components would be required. It is true that the wider the area of meaning the greater the number of referents, but also the fewer the number of common semantic components. The larger the number of diverse entities within any class, the fewer are the numbers of features normally necessary to identify the basis for class membership.i.e. systemic value, synonymic dominant, common denominator, etc. In terms of traditional analysis these are the relations of hyperonymy.

2.Overlapping. One of the most obvious features of relatedness of meanings is their tendency to overlap. Related meanings that differ with respect to degree, such as like and love, possess/own, give/bestow, answer/ reply: e.g. to give – to hand over to a person without payment or exchange and to bestow – give as an offering: honour, title, etc. are said to overlap. The words in each pair, normally called as synonyms, are almost never substitutable one for the other in any and all contexts because they are not identical in meaning but they do overlap in that they can be substituted one for the other in at least certain contexts without significant changes in the conceptual content of an utterance. So, overlapping meanings are those that are more or less synonymous, share both common and diagnostic components but may differ in connotative features.

3.Complementation. Meanings, complementary to each other, involve a number of shared features of meaning, but show certain marked contrasts, and often opposite meanings. In general there are three types of complementary relations: 1/ opposites, 2/ reversives, 3/ conversives.

Opposites are often spoken of as polar contrasts, since they involve distinct antithesis of qualities: good/bad, high/low etc. In traditional systemic approach these are antonyms proper but they belong to one and the same semantic paradigm as sharing the same features and the same distribution. Traditionally these are antonyms of opposite meaning.

Reversives are presented with semantically reversed words, mostly the verbs: to tie – to untie, to alienate – to reconcile.

Conversives present the type of a relation when in every pairs of words the meaning of the first presupposes the participation of the second: alienate – reconcile, buy – sell.

4. The relation of contiguity represents the relationship between two close meanings, when one of them provides for the word a position in a well-defined, restricted semantic domain with exhibiting certain well-marked contrasts in relation to other components of this domain, while another meaning is the result of extension of the first meaning to a more generalized. As a rule, this is a relation of polysemy.