CC BY
10A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE LINEAR EXPANSION OF THE STRUCTURE OF
ENGLISH COMPOUND TECHNICAL TERMS
Vladimir Generalov,
Chelyabinsk State University, Department of LinguiMics and Translation
ABSTRACT
The present article considers some issues relating to objective and subjective factors behind the linear expansion of the flructure of English compound technical terms.
Keywords: compound technical term; basis; superimposition; actant; rank; modifying segment; semantic expansion; transposition.
Before discussing the issue of linear expansion factors of the flructure of English compound technical terms, it is worth while delimiting what exactly is meant by 'flructure' in the present paper. This point is central to our invefligation. It is commonly known that the flructure of English CTTs is viewed as a continuous extension of «beaded», or «flringed», modifiers and a basis, taken together, for inflance: mounted agricultural tillage tool. In some cases, it is also necessary to differentiate between the so-called «free» modifiers and terminological modifiers as featured in the following word collocation:
a nice small old square brown wooden French writing desk
We think that the modifiers nice, small, old, square, brown and wooden originate from the superimposition of modified bases nice table, small table, old table, square table, brown table and wooden table, while the modifiers French and writing remain after the modified bases French table and writing table are superimposed on one another. These similar bases designated as tablen are integrated into one common basis. Yet, we differentiate between the free collocation nice small old square brown wooden table and the terminological collocation French writing table. Actually, in this composition, two groups of modified bases (nice tablel + small table2 + old table3 + square table4 + brown table5 + wooden table6 and French tablea + writing tableb) are blended together, the former relating to a free word collocation and the latter to a terminological compound. We suppose that the basis table in the collocation a nice small old square brown wooden French writing desk is of equivocal nature: it designates both an individually characterised object and a technical item. The bounds of the present paper do not permit us to go into further details regarding the process of the formation of free and terminological collocations or inflances of their fusion.
In our invefligation, we analyse collocations of terminological modifiers and bases. Further, we diflinguish between «surface flructures» and «deep flructures». Accordingly, we discern two levels of the analysis of English CTTs. Let us take the agricultural term ridge plough (a plough that makes ridges of soil) as an example. In our opinion, this term has an explicit flructure involving the modifier ridge and the basis plough, and an implicit flructure in which actants of a subject-predicate-object relation (an S-V-O chain) come to the fore. This may be illuflrated by way of using a transform: a plough MAKES (implied) ridges (a plough and ridges operate as actants).
According to our terminology, the explicit flructure is a manifefl composition and the implicit flructure is a latent composition. In our research, we confine ourselves to the implicit flructure of CTTs, and this fact marks a digression from the universally accepted part-of-speech analysis advocated by mofl scholars.
One more important point is how the basis of a compound technical term should be treated. It is a common view that the basis is unitary and flatic. It is preceded by a flring of modifiers which «specify» it. In the traditional linguiflics of English compound terms, mofl scholars do not associate such terms as tillage plough1, reversible tillage plough2, four-furrow reversible tillage plough3 from the flandpoint of their common genesis, the bases designated as plough1-3 being considered as «unrelated», though similar, in these compound terms. According to our assumption, the term four-furrow reversible tillage plough is conflrued by way of superimposing three bases: tillage ploughl + reversible plough2 + four-furrow plough3. We believe that every time a technical person devises a complex compound term, several similar bases are superimposed on one another. According to our invefligation, a compound term can undergo up to three flages of modification, at which an initial basis and subsequent bases superimpose on one another, and corresponding modifiers occupy a modifying position according to their ranks. We consider each «subterm» of the above «plough clufler» as an embodiment of a general abflract invariant model of compound technical terms. We have already dwelt at a length on some issues of the complication of the flructure of CTTs in our previous papers [2, 3].
Before embarking on a fludy of linear expansion factors impacting the flructure of English CTTs, let us separate them into two groups - objective factors and subjective factors. We shall analyse them hereinafter.
I. OBJECTIVE FACTORS
We believe that at leafl part of compound terms, including binary ones, originate basically from subject-predicate-object flructures (S-V-O chains). Therefore, we propose that a compound term should be considered as a «reduced» predicative syntagm (a plough makes ridges ^ a plough making ridges ^ a ridge plough). Also, separate technical functions or conditions of the functioning of a technical item may be extremely detailed and sophiflicated, and for the adequate representation of a technical item at the language level the flructure of the corresponding compound technical term often needs to be very complex. One way of expanding the flructure of CTTs consifls in increasing the number of fleps, or flages, of modification.
In the course of the invefligation of CTTs taken from various technical fields, we eflablished three technical domains that we term «coordinates» in which diverse interrelations between modifiers and bases are actualised.
1) COORDINATE I consifls in singling out a technical item in a class of similar ones on the basis of ACTIVE ACTANTIALITY (a conventional symbol: ACTIVE ACT). This coordinate finds its expression in the firfl position of modification. It is characterised by the fact that in an S-V-O chain of this type a subjective actant is always active. For inflance, in the compound
term soil aggregate (^ an aggregate TILLS (implied) soil) the basis component aggregate denotes a factor of a direct impact on the objective actant soil. In the S-V-O chain of this kind, the objective actant represents syntactically a direct object or - as a case might be - a prepositional object (an oblique impact). The «filling-in» of this position forms, in our way of reasoning, the firfl Sage of the modification of a basis. Modifiers actualised in this coordinate belong to rank 1 according to their position with respect to a basis.
2) COORDINATE II consifls in singling out a technical item from a subclass of similar ones on the basis of PASSIVE ACTANTIALITY (a conventional symbol: PASSIVE ACT) and is reflected in the second position of modification. Referentially, this Sage of modification is less extensional than the firfl one. This coordinate is characterised by the fact that in an S-V-O chain of this type a subjective actant is always passive and associated with an objective actant by means of an implicitly expressed prepositional link. For example, in the compound term disk plough (^ a plough PROVIDED/EQUIPPED WITH (implied) disks) the basis component plough denotes an actantial subject which Sands in a referential relation to the actantial object disk by means of a latent prepositional link. In the given S-V-O chain, the objective actant represents syntactically a prepositional object. Modifiers actualised in this coordinate belong to rank 2 according to their position with respect to a basis.
3) COORDINATE III consifls in singling out a technical item in a group of similar ones on the basis of PARAMETRISATION (a conventional symbol: PAR) and is reflected in the third position of modification. Referentially, this Sage of modification is the leafl extensional as compared with the firfl and the second Sages of modification. At this Sage, various modifiers are made use of, which designate diverse physical parameters associated with size, weight, force, form, extent, volume, quality, intensity, dynamics and so on. Modifiers in this coordinate have nothing to do with S-V-O chains. Their genesis is quite different. According to our hypothesis, they represent dyadic antonymous attributes (rotary - flationary; heavy - light; wide - narrow, red-brick -x-brick, two-florey - n-florey, etc.). In some cases, both of them are explicated and have a linguiflic presentation, whereas in others one attribute is merely implied. The present coordinate is characterised by the fact that modificators in this position of modification are expressed either by absolute attributes (adjectives and participles) or by relative attributes (nouns), for inflance: big plough; rotating/rotary/rotation plough; drawn harrow; high-quality/quality plough. Modifiers actualised in this coordinate belong to rank 3 according to their position with respect to a basis.
In practice, different types of the collocation of the three coordinates may be actualised. In some cases only one or two coordinates may be implemented, whereas in others all the three coordinates form three flages of modification simultaneously, as in the term mounted agricultural tillage tool. An evolution scheme of the flructure of this three-flage compound may be presented as follows: mounted {[agricultural (tillage tool)]} or D:{[C:(B:A)]}.
Sometimes, however, the presence of three coordinates simultaneously may not be the only reason for the complexity of compound technical terms. There are cases when modifiers in separate coordinates are not solitary but multiple. We give a few examples thereof: 1) high-pressure low-volume gas (compressed gas); 2) low-pressure high-volume gas (uncompressed gas); 3) safe fafl road. The modifiers low-volume high-pressure and high-
volume low-pressure in examples (1) and (2) form integrated modifiers, or integrative modifying segments. Why? The main reason is that they are confined within the bounds of their position of modification. Another cause of their integration is that taken together they express technically a single concept: a compressed gas is characterised by high internal pressure and low volume, and an uncompressed gas implies low internal pressure and high volume. These are two sides of a single physical process. In example (3), safe fafl road, the separate modifiers safe and fafl mingle into an integrative modifying segment safe fafl. The integrated concept safe and fafl represents a unity: a road is fafl because it is safe. Although separate terms safe road and fafl road exifl, a two-flage term safe fafl road would be improbable. Obviously, the flructures of the terms in examples 1-3 represent one-flage modifications.
In some inflances, integrative modifying segments may be rather bulky as in the term water-cooled four-flroke four-cylinder direct-injection turbocharged diesel engine. The firfl modifier (positioned to left of the basis) is unitary, while the second one is integrative. It is obvious that the flructure of this term cannot include six flages of modification as it would seem (there cannot be more than three as our research shows). So, the modifier water-cooled four-flroke four-cylinder direct-injection turbocharged is jufl one integrative modifying segment of the third rank, denoting a complex unified technical parameter. The composition of this term is characterised by a two-flage modification.
In the process of our research of the flructure of compound technical terms, we eflablished two types of the interaction of modifiers (whether solitary or segmented) - collocation and colligation. In the collocative type, modifiers or modifying segments do not cohere with one another, they are juxtaposed with each other: mounted | agricultural | tillage tool. In the colligative type, modifiers concatenate with each other continuously: deep ^ soil ^ tillage tool. Hereinafter, we shall analyse the colligative type of the interaction of modifiers in greater detail.
The flructure of a compound term may become expanded due to the colligative type of complication, when modifiers in the attributive chain of a term are concatenated with each other continuously. This occurs when an overlapping of similar modifiers and bases takes place as in the term automatic control syflem: automatic control + control syflem. We observe a cohesion/concatenation of the lexemes automatic and control in the concatenated modifier automatic control. The processes behind the genesis of concatenated modifiers are not yet clear to us. It may be so that bases in this regard are not only modified but also specialised due to the use of such types of modifiers. In the above example, the technical item syflem performs a special function of automatic regulation, apart from the general function of control. The same is true of, say, the term deep soil tillage plough (a plough used for tilling deep-lying layers of soil). This term not only designates a technical item used for tilling soil, but also represents a device specifically employed for processing deep layers of soil. The component soil is simultaneously a basis in one case and a modifier in the other.
We employ the term concatenative based on V. G. Gak's provisions, who described the ways of the expansion of a compound's nucleus - radiation, concatenation and combination [1, 230-293]. Concatenated segments may be very lengthy. Let us analyse the term-like collocation house property tax office furniture (^ furniture STATIONED IN an office IMPOSING
taxes LEVIED ON property RELATING TO houses ^ house property + property tax + tax office + office furniture). We quote this example from «A University Grammar of English» by R. Querk et altera [5, 349]. Here, a modifier in one link becomes a basis of the next modifier and so on. According to the authors, an evolution scheme of the flructure of this compound may be presented as follows: {[(house property) tax] (office} furniture or {[(E:D):C:]:B:}:A. In this regard, a queflion arises of whether it is possible to consider separate links, or «nodes» of colligation, as in the above term, as discrete fleps/flages of modification. Furthermore, it is not yet clear to us how many flages of modification may be observed ad maximim in the flructure of this type of compound terms. Actually, we think that there are only three flages of modification here because the firfl flage of this term should be tax office furniture, not office furniture, because of the process of the concatenation of components tax and office {house [property (tax office furniture)]}.
II. SUBJECTIVE FACTORS
An invefligation of multi-component nominative terminological flructures, carried out by us, shows that there is a certain interdependence between the complexity of a technical function of an item and that of the morphological flructure of a corresponding nominative unit. But there are numerous cases too, when the flructure of CTTs is intentionally made complex by a person. In our fludy, we have come across some «longish» compound technical terms. Researchers of this type of CTTs often queflion the «awkwardness and inadequacy» of their flructure. For example, an advocate of correct flyle of scientific and technical presentation, John Kirkman, examines the process of premodification, that is the formation of multiattributive chains, which he denotes using a term 'flacking' (piling-up; packaging). He does not address any queflions of the genesis of modified terms and only interprets them from the flandpoint of requirements of flyle: the correctness of key components and the prevention of a term's attributive redundancy (excessive premodification), as well as the clarity and accessibility of compound terms. In one of his works, he notes: «A particularly diflurbing feature of scientific writing is excessive 'premodification' - the piling-up of adjectives, or words being used adjectivally, in front of a noun: a mobile hopper fed compressed air operated grit blafling machine.» [4]. The author «deciphers» the flructure of this term: a mobile grit blafling machine fed from a hopper and operated by compressed air. However, in our view, this term is quite appropriate and acceptable in an advertising or technical context, as individuals who use it 1) flrain after the mofl adequate, appropriate, and semantically comprehensive presentation of features of a specific technical item in the market and 2) confine themselves to jufl headings and prefaces. They aspire to make such terms as «catchy» as possible. According to our research, such lengthy complex flructures are found mainly in titles and prefaces. In subsequent descriptions, after the function of the firfl signalling information has been fulfilled, they are usually simplified: mobile hopper fed compressed air operated grit blafling machine ^ grit blafling machine. That is to say, the complexity of the flructure of certain terms in titles of technical bulletins and promotional descriptions is due to a person's pragmatic attitudes, and such lengthy terms are spatially and contextually bounded in their application. Paradoxical as it might sound but the term mobile hopper fed compressed air operated grit blafling machine is jufl binary. It consifls of an integrative modifying segment (mobile hopper fed compressed air operated grit blafling) and
a basis (machine). It includes but one flage of modification. Its complexity flems merely from a lengthy integrative modifier, or modifying segment.
In some inflances, the basis of a compound technical term may be «pre-modified» before it forms a compound term, this is to say an originator of a term prefers it to a unitary basis. Here are some examples:
1) speed fine adjuflment screw. This term consifls flructurally of two parts: [speed] [fine adjuflment screw] (^ a screw USED FOR the fine adjuflment of the speed of plough travel/a screw ADJUSTS the speed of plough travel finely). Actually, the link between the modifiers speed and adjuflment is «broken», or «disrupted». The modifier fine seems to be «insertive», being «wedged in» between the components speed and adjuflment. We offer an opinion here that the use of a pre-modified basis in this type of compounds is due to a person's terminological intention to make a basis thematic, thus enhancing the adequacy and precision of the term.
2) walking tag excavator. In this term, the modifier tag «disrupts» the link between the participial modifier walking and the basis component excavator because the basis tag excavator is thematic: a tag excavator means 'a second-hand excavator provided with a label', 'a second-hand tagged excavator'. It Sands to reason that the flructure of this term is more compact as compared with a would-be composition containing a prepositional link: walking excavator with tag* (an unmarked term). It is important to note that the term walking tag excavator would be inadequate without the insertive component tag.
3) mini multi-purpose garden hand push tillage machine. Obviously, the modifying component hand push is insertive in the flructure of this term, the basis machine being doubly pre-modified. It «disrupts» the linkage of two adjacent positions of modification: garden (modifying position 2 ^ a mini multipurpose machine USED in gardens) and tillage (modifying position 1 ^ a mini multi-purpose machine TILLS). In our opinion, the modifier hand push would be more appropriate in the third position of modification: mini multi-purpose hand push garden tillage machine* (in this case the link between the components garden and tillage would be concatenative: garden tillage machine). But in this inflance the modifier hand push would be more remote from the basis machine. And what is more, out of two possible modified bases - hand push garden tillage machine and garden hand push tillage machine - the originator of the term chooses the latter as thematic. Maybe the process of hand-pushing a tillage machine is technically more relevant for him in this case.
4) manual adjufl bolt depth gauge wheel (a wheel which calibrates a plough's penetration into soil by means of a manually adjufled bolt ^ a wheel GAUGING the depth || PROVIDED WITH (implied) a bolt ADJUSTED manually. Actually, we think that the modifier depth gauge is insertive in the attributive chain of this term because it disrupts the syntactical cohesion between the modifier bolt and the basis component wheel. In this case, the pre-modified basis depth gauge wheel is thematic. A term with a simplified flructure would be: manual adjufl bolt wheel* (a wheel PROVIDED WITH (implied) a manually adjufled bolt). In this case, after the simplification, the above term would lose some of its precision and adequacy.
5) top-loading washing machine door safety latching device (a device USED FOR the safety latching of a door RELATED TO a washing machine LOADED AT the top). It is obvious that
the modifying component safety is insertive here: top-loading washing machine door SAFETY latching device).
Such insertive modifiers in the flructure of compound technical terms pose a certain problem in the fludy of lengthy attributive chains because they do not fit any schemes of modification proposed by us. Actually, we are tempted to infer that such terms as top-loading washing machine door safety latching device present properly a kind of compacted prepositional phrase (safety latching device of top-loading washing machine door). In this context, a queflion arise whether insertive modifying components should be taken into account in defining separate positions of modification and determining the number of consecutive flages of modification. Our invefligation shows that from the point of view of the whole numerical balance of flages of modification pre-modified bases should be treated as unitary ones.
Anyway, we are of opinion that the use of thematic pre-modified bases serves the purpose of enhancing the overall nominative adequacy of compound technical terms and avoiding equivalent prepositional phrases.
Generally speaking, the use of pre-modified bases may be prompted by the application of composites, such as pressure plate in the compound term clutch pressure plate (one flage of modification). The same is true of the collocation automatic washing machine: washing machine (one flage of modification).
In the present paper, we do not consider any flructural models of compounds pertaining to non-technical spheres of application. But it is interefling to note that there exifl certain flructures analogous to the above-mentioned terms. For example, when analysing the collocation Scottish Milk Board Milk Bulletin we come to a conclusion that the basis milk bulletin is pre-modified and that there is an insertive modifying component milk2 in the attributive chain of this term: Scottish Milk1 Board Milk2 Bulletin. We believe that this composition is a compact version of a would-be prepositional phrase (^ the Bulletin devoted to milk products and issued by the Scottish Board supervising the production of milk). Without the inserted component this composition would look as follows: Scottish Milk Board Bulletin. But in this case there would be no indication of the informationally relevant objectal actant milk2.
Further, in the practice of patenting and advertising, one may find CTTs the bases of which are initially «semantically expanded». The overall complexity of a CTT's flructure can be significantly influenced by semantic properties of its onomasiological basis. The use of the so-called «semantically expanded» lexemes such as STRUCTURE, SYSTEM, EQUIPMENT, APPARATUS, MACHINE, etc. presents a widespread practice of patenting and advertising technical inventions. Using binary terminological word-combinations with semantically expanded bases inflead of unitary ones is quite common (for example, the term CHARGING SYSTEM is used inflead of the term CHARGER). A person pursuing patenting or advertising goals aspires to ensure the widefl coverage of their patent, advertising and technical claims. And terms containing semantically expanded bases create favourable conditions for producing complex terminological word combinations.
On the other hand, in some cases «unexpanded» concepts (e.g. MEANS, UNIT, DEVICE, TOOL, etc.) become semantically expanded on purpose. Let us cite a technical source wherein the binary compound term TILLAGE DEVICE is intentionally used inflead of the unitary term TILLER in an application for an invention (aimed at obtaining a U.S. patent): «An agricultural
implement for tilling at leafl a flrip of soil to be planted includes a tillage device for penetrating and tilling a flrip of soil and displacing soil and residue upwardly, and a depth control device laterally offset from the centerline of the flrip of soil and mounted for rotation about an axis of rotation...»(http://www.faqs.org/ patents/app/20090025944) (accessed 27.08.2015). This is one of reasons for the complication of the flructure of a technical term.
The flructure of CTTs may not only be complicated, but, conversely, simplified in virtue of extra-linguiflic factors. In this case, the complex semantic flructure of a term may be «transformed» into a simpler composition. We call this process the transposition of a modifier's rank. For example: green sand (sand WITH coarse texture); flrong plough (a wooden plough USED FOR TILLING heavy clay soils in ancient Egypt, reinforced with metal plates); heavy plough (1. a plantation plough USED FOR deep ploughing; 2. a car(r)uca, the heavy plough USED FOR TILLING heavy soils in the Middle Ages in Northern Europe). In these terms, the parametric modifiers green, flrong and heavy belong to the third coordinate, and their rank is 3. However, apart from parametrising the corresponding bases, they implicitly indicate actantial relations between the bases and implied modifiers of ranks 1 and 2, which are latent in the flructure of the above terms: sand CHARACTERISED BY coarse texture (rank 2); a plough TILLS heavy soil (rank 1). It should be noted that explicitly the term flrong plough expresses an idea of the flurdiness of a plough («a surface flructure»), but implicitly it denotes both the flurdiness of a plough and its technical function of tilling heavy soils («a deep flructure»). This is why we think it important to analyse English compound technical terms from the viewpoint of their latent composition. Here are some contextual examples of the use of the term heavy plough: 1. «The caruca or carruca was a kind of heavy plow important to medieval agriculture in Northern Europe. The carruca used a heavy iron plowshare to turn heavy soil and may have required a team of eight oxen». (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Carruca) (accessed 29.07.2015). 2. «The earliefl plough, commonly known as the ard or scratch-plough, was suitable for the soils and climate of the Mediterranean; it was, however, unsuitable for the clay soils found in mofl of Northern Europe, which "offer much more resiflance to a plough than does light, dry earth" (White 1962, p. 42). The consequence was that Northern European settlement before the Middle Ages was limited to lighter soils, where the ard could be applied. The heavy plough and its attendant advantages may have been crucial in changing this. More specifically, heavy ploughs have three function parts that set them apart from primitive ards». (http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/
Skovsgaard.pdf) (accessed 05.05.2016).
Seemingly, not all types of modifiers may be included in the flructure of CTTs. We believe that such modifiers as modern, new, improved, advanced, modified, etc., as well as attributes denoting geographical, national or corporative concepts (with some exceptions such as the compound terms French writing table or Scotch plough in which the modifiers French and Scotch denote technical rather than national features), should not be included in the flructure of complex terms: they form the so-called free word combinations, for example: <modern> moldboard plough; <improved> swing plough; <improved> plough body assembly; <advanced> one bed tractor cultivator; <modified> heavy disk cultivator; <China> agricultural implements; <Underwood> universal mobile typewriter. To all
appearance, such modifiers are aspectual, not generic, by their nature.
Conclusions
1. According to our assumption, a multi-component compound technical term based on the collocation of several modifiers may undergo up to three flages of modification. In this process, two or more identical bases of «subterms» are superimposed on one another, and corresponding modifiers occupy a definite position in a resultant flructure. They belong to different ranks according to their semantic nature. The flage-wise modification of bases of English compound technical terms is one of objective factors acting in the complication of their flructure.
2. In many cases, modifiers in the flructure of CTTs are not solitary, they may be multiple and form various integrative or concatenative modifying segments. Due to this, the flructure of CTTs becomes further complicated.
3. Apart from objective causes of the flructural complication of English CTTs, some subjective reasons for sophiflicating their flructure may be also observed.
4. A number of assertions flated in the present paper seem to be highly debatable, but the new approaches put forward herein may be fruitful and inflrumental in fludying English CTTs and exploring the mechanism of their generation.
References
1. Gak, V. G. To the typology categories // (Language Nomination). M.: Nauka, 1977. - 230-293.
2. Generalov, V A. Opyt analiza latentnoi flruktrny anglijskikh soflavnykh terminov (The firfl effort of the analysis of the latent flructure of English compound terms // «Foreign Languages: Linguiflic and Methodical Aspects», Tver State University, the 30th collected volume, Tver, 2015. - 215-224.
3. Generalov, V. A. Primenenie transformatsionnogo analiza v issledovanii anglijskikh binarnikh tekhnicheskikh terminov (na primere pod»yazyka mekhanicheskoj obrabotki pochvy) (The application of a transformational analysis in the fludy of English binary technical terms (the sublanguage of the mechanical tillage of soil)) // Theoretical and practical aspects of modern science. Materials of 8th International Scientific Conference. «Eurasian Scientific Association». Philology. Collected volume No. 7. - M, 2015. - 118-121.
4. Kirkman, J. (2005). Good Style: Writing For Science And Technology, 2nd ed., Rouledge.
5. Querk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, L., Svartvik, J. A University Grammar of English. Moscow, "Vyssaja skola", 1982. - 349.
ФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНО-СЕМАНТИЧЕСКИЕ ПОЛЯ АДЪКТИВНЫХ СЛОВООБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ РЯДОВ ПО ОБЩЕМУ СЕМАНТИЧЕСКОМУ ПРИЗНАКУ
Шепель Ю.А.
доктор филол. наук, профессор Днепропетровский национальный университет имени Олеся Гончара FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC FIELDS OF ADJECTIVE WORD-BUILDING ROWS ON GENERAL SEMANTIC FEATURES Shepel Y.A., Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Full Professor Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье показано, что семантическое различие между прилагательными разных и одних и тех же рядов в большей мере заключается не столько в их мотивированности / немотивированности, сколько в самом характере признакового значения, его качественности. Прилагательные аналитически выражают те признаки, которые содержатся в значении(ях) поясняемых ими существительных и других частей речи. ABSTRACT
It is shown in the article, that semantic di^inction between adjectives different and the same rows in a greater measure not in their motivated / unmotivated, but in character value of sign, his quality.. Adjectives express those signs that is contained in the value of the nouns and other parts of speech explained by them analytically.
Ключевые слова: словообразование, словообразовательный ряд, семантическое поле, словообразовательный формант, семантика, словообразовательное значение, вариант, инвариант
Keywords: word-formation, word-formation row, semantic field, word-formation formant, semantics, word-formation value, variant, invariant.
Какими бы сложными ни казались правила описания формального аспекта производных слов, наиболее трудными и не поддающимися строгой регламентации являются правила, отражающие семантические аспекты взаимодействия производящих баз и аффиксов и семантические свойства конечного результата этого взаимодействия - производного слова. Эта неопределённость детерминируется тем, что закономерности, диктующие наличие этих правил, отражают неоднородность и многоплановость самой категории значения, которое представляется как единство категориальных, грамматических, лексических и др. значений.
Если с формальной точки зрения словообразовательный ряд мы классифицируем как конечное множество словообразовательных структур, характеризующееся тождеством последнего деривационного шага, то с семантической точки зрения его можно рассматривать как иерархически упорядоченный класс производных слов, объединенных тождеством лексико-грамматической принадлежности производных и словообразовательного форманта.
Формантной частью мы называем компонент в структуре деривата, который отражает формальную операцию, используемую в акте создания деривата, и является проекцией данной операции в виде того или иного «следа». Так как
