Part 2.The Principles of Syntagmatic Analysis.

§2. If paradigmatic relations /PRs/ realize first the need of the cognitive function of language, the relations of speech known as syntagmatic relations /SRs/ fulfill the communicative need of language.

Syntagmatic relations are contracted by linguistic elements /signs/ of different linguistic status and of different complexity: phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, etc., so the contrast is a characteristic feature for this type of relations.

Linearity in displacement of elements is the main factor responsible for establishing syntagmatic relations. Linearity presupposes that every segment of a lower rank (level) integrates into the composition of a segment belonging to a higher rank.

Relatedness is one more crucial factor for establishing syntagmatic relations. The elements in a linear structure known as a syntagma must be combined semantically. Accordingly the property of the elements to combine semantically in order to present some communicative idea is called in linguistics as valency.

2.1. If to regard lexical or syntactical unit in relation to their semantic realization it makes clear that their ontological filling presupposes relations of the parts because distribution of any unit when used in speech is strictly discriminated by the rules of semantic compatibility and these rules work for all linguistic signs. In other words, whatever is the paradigmatic structure, in its syntagmatic realization it is subordinate to the principle of semantic ( lexical or grammatical compatibility). It means that in producing a message so as in its decoding we are directed by the principle of a semantic relevance for this or that unit in a given syntagm and here the only element of the meaning structure takes foreground. In linguistics such phenomenon may be regarded as relative semantics.

Thus, relative semantics presents that sphere in all language activity which predetermines functioning of meaning elements in their combination on the level of a unit of a higher linguistic status or of a higher degree of complexity. Such are the things in combination of the elements of meaning in a compound or derivative word, combination of the elements of meaning in an utterance or sentence. To all that it is worth considering the degree of semantic compatibility, because in syntagmatics the elements enter into different types of relations. Being realized in a linear way they may be of three types: independence, dependence and interdependence.

2.2.Syntagmatic relations are observed at different language levels, hence the notion of ‘sRs’ is much more wider than ‘syntactical relations’

a/ Relations of independence in lexemes of derivative type may be qualified as relatively free type of connection, that of adnection This type of relationship conventionally allows for the component part of the syntagmatic structure be omitted: mailbox → box; errand - boy→ boy on that condition that the components are of the same linguistic status.

b/Dependence as the type of relationship , accordingly, is characteristic for those units the component parts of which are expressed by the units if different linguistic status; e.g.: N + -suffix. A + suffix , V + suffix, N + agglutinator, A + agglutinator, prefix + N /A,V/.When omitting the first components we can get information as regards the basis of nomination of the whole derivative structure. In all examples the second elements in a sequence “ determinant→determinatum ‘ occupy the position of a ‘determinatum ‘ and make the basis of nomination. If to put quite a legitimate question as to differences in linguistic status of them we must take into account the functional character of the elements in question: suffixes are classifying in their function while prefixes normally function as modifying with that little exception when they also may be referred to as classifying ones: em-brace, en-rich, en-tail, etc.. Free word combinations of attributive type very characteristic for Modern English structure are also adnective in their formal organization and in linguistic literature are known as the units of endocentric type.

c/ Relations of interdependence are presented with the units of adjunctive type in which the connection between the components of a structure is strong and the basis of nomination can be sooner diagnosed beyond the limits of a structure in question. These are examples of idiomatic compounds as makebelieve → pretence, speakeasy → ordinary pub; phraseological fusions → tit to tat, knock for knock; high and dry → I am high and dry = I am moneyless; to be born with a silver spoon in a mouth → Young Jolion was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but the spoon appeared rather curly and hard/ J.Gals; the “apo-koinou” construction /Greek ‘with a common element/→ It was you insisted on coming, because you didn’t like restraints; Here is the one makes the noise at night.

4.2. The approach to the problem of combining power of elements is based on the principle of distributional analysis when the features of elements surrounding a unit in question count, i.e. the constructional syntagmatic relations may be established only in a case of semantic compatibility of the elements in juxtaposition. So the article may be used only with the nouns or substantivized parts of speech and never, for instance, with the verb or pronoun; exactly so as the adjectives will never get the markers of a verb, etc .These examples illustrate semantic compatibility for the units rendering in speech general grammatical categories or meanings. What is about lexical units their ability to enter into syntagmatic relations is conditioned by their belonging to the semantic fields or paradigms the elements of which manifest ability to combine on different levels of abstraction including accordingly the units of primary and secondary nomination, e.g.: He is a lazy boy → he is a lazybone; he is a workshy.

Hence, the valency or combining power of language units presents their potential ability to get into syntagmatic relations and to pattern with the units of appropriate types.

So, on the syntagmatic level the semantic structure of the word is analyzed in linear relationships with neighboring words in connected speech.

Summary: According to F. de Saussure, language is a system of signs expressing ideas. The elements of a system are the constituents of the multitude and 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’. The relations inside a paradigm are associative in nature and are called as Paradigmatic Relations. On the paradigmatic level the word is studied in its relationships with other words in the vocabulary system. Traditionally for the units of lexicological level these are relations of polysemy, homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hyperonymy. The essential types of related meanings in a componential analysis were suggested by American linguist E. Nida. If paradigmatic relations realize the need of the cognitive function of language, the relations of speech known as syntagmatic relations fulfill the communicative need of language. Being realized in a linear way they may be of three types: independence, dependence and interdependence.

Seminar 5 (a); (b):

Topics for comprehension check and class discussion:

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.