CC BY
7Ya. Shvayko
COCEPTUAL PARAMETERS OF REPRESENTATION OF ENGLISH "TEACHING" VERBS' MEANING IN DICTIONARIES
Статья выполнена при поддержке гранта РГНФ 14-14-00497
Keywords: nomination (field/area of nomination), lexical unit, synonymic row, lexical-semantic variant, semantic data, lexicographic source, cognitive basis, denotatum (denotative situation, localization of predicate denotatum on the time axis, degree of abstraction of predicate denotatum from the time axis), differential semasiology, integral semantic feature, differential semantic feature, semantic role, actant, monogenic predicate, heterogenic predicate, gestalt, proto-typic meaning, mental space, metalinguistic model, conceptualization.
Abstract: The present article demonstrates the methodology of detection of cognitive basis of representation of lexical units' meaning in lexicographic sources through the example of English "teaching" verbs (teach, instruct, direct, guide, inform, improve, convince, train, educate, qualify). A pre-research analysis of "teaching" verbs' definitions in the present-day lexicographic sources revealed that the given lexemes are frequently defined through synonyms or through heterogenic concepts, requiring further interpretation.
The "toolkit" of hypothetical-deductive method allows putting forward assumptions about availability or certain differential feature in the semantic role of left-hand or right-hand actant of situation, denoted by the lexeme. All hypotheses made therefore have passed verification though a tailor-made testing system.
In order to create a complete model of meaning of English "teaching" verbs, it is not enough to disclose the actant roles, but also to state the types of predicates from the point of view of degree of localization/abstraction of predicate denotatum on/from the time axis.
Thus disclosed cognitive bases allow building up semantic models of English "teaching" verbs utilizing a proprietary metalanguage.
Ключевые слова: номинация (область номинации, номинационное поле), лексическая единица, синонимическая группа, лексико-семантический вариант, семантическая информация, лексикографический источник, концептуальный параметр, денотат (денотативная ситуация, локализация/актуализация денотата предиката на оси времени, степень абстра-гированности денотата предиката от оси времени), дифференциальная семасиология, интегральный семантический признак, дифференциальный семантический признак, семантическая роль, актант, моногенный предикат, гетерогенный предикат, гештальт, прототипиче-ское значение, ментальное пространство, метаязыковая модель, концептуализация.
Аннотация: В настоящей статье на примере английских глаголов обучения (teach, instruct, direct, guide, inform, improve, convince, train, educate, qualify) демонстрируется механизм выявления концептуальных параметров представления значения языковых единиц в лексикографических источниках. Анализ дефиниций глаголов обучения, представленных в современных лексикографических источниках, показал, что зачастую указанные словные единицы трактуются через синонимы либо через гетерогенные понятия, требующие дальнейшего трактования.
Инструментарий гипотетико-дедуктивного метода позволяет выдвигать предположения о присутствии того или иного дифференциального семантического признака в составе семантической роли левостороннего или правостороннего актанта денотативной ситуации, номинируемой лексической единицей. Выдвигаемые гипотезы проходят верификацию с использованием специальной системы тестирования.
проелемы современного осрпзоопнип
Для получения более исчерпывающей картины значения английских глаголов обучения помимо моделирования ролевой семантики устанавливаются типы предикатов с точки зрения степени локализации/абстракции денотата предиката на/от оси времени.
На основе полученных результатов, а именно установленных концептуальных параметров, формулируются семантические модели значения глаголов обучения с использованием специального метаязыка.
Scientific researches aimed at exploring the meaning of linguistic units, have always been one of the key areas in linguistics and remain up-to-date presently. Systematic analysis of lexicographical sources revealed that the information provided in most dictionaries, often can not accurately determine the meaning of a particular linguistic unit. This is especially true concerning words of similar meaning, belonging to the same group of synonymous. Therefore, in modern linguistics a special branch of researches has formed, the aim of which is to clarify the field of nominations of linguistic units with synonymic meaning.
Hence, English verbs of the sphere of education became an object of a special study. The analysis of English synonymic dictionaries revealed 48 verbs with the meaning of "teaching". Further on out of these 48 verbs 10 most frequently occurring lexemes were selected, which illustrate the specifics of the given group of lexis. These 10 verbal lexemes include: to teach, to instruct, to direct, to guide, to inform, to improve, to convince, to train, to educate, to qualify. Analysis of lexical entries of given verbs presented in modern authentic explanatory and English- Russian as well as Russian-English dictionaries showed that the information available in them, does not clearly indicate the area of nomination of each verb, and does not allow to distinguish them from other units, similar in meaning, because one lexical unit is often explained through the other, for example:
teach 1. if you teach someone something you give them instructions so that they know about it or how to do it [BBCED],
instruct 1. to communicate knowledge to; teach; educate [WNWCD]. train 1. to instruct so as to make proficient or qualified [WNWCD],
educate 1. to teach or train through formal instruction at school or college... [CCELD]. As we see, the verb to instruct is explained through the verb to teach, to train - through the verb to instruct, and to qualify, and the verb to educate through train and teach.
Charles Fillmore and a number of other authors, talking about ways of representation of semantic information in lexicographical sources considers such principle as wrong, saying: "It is incorrect to input in the dictionary a maximum number of cross-references, i.e. to use other lexemes of the natural language, already explained in the dictionary, in the interpretation of a given lexeme. It forces us (people who use a dictionary) to make arbitrary decisions "[Fillmore, 1983, p. 26-30].
The latest research, of both domestic and foreign linguists, concerning the meaning of linguistic units, it is demonstrated that to effectively resolve this problem it is necessary to carry out the identification of conceptual parameters underlying the linguistic sign. By "conceptual parameters" mental categories and structures are meant, as well as parameters of denotative situation, properties of actants, differential semantic features, and degree of abstraction of predicative denotatum from the time axis. According to scientists, it is these parameters which constitute the nomination field of linguistic unit. [Lakoff, 1981; Chafe, 1975; Jackendoff, 1993; Kubryakova, 1992; Seliverstova, 2004; Shabanova, 1998, Amirova, 2002; Suleimanova 2004].
In order to define conceptual parameters of meaning, representation of linguistic units in lexicographical sources, and consequently the conditions of their use, it is recommended to apply a structural approach, which involves the interpretation of meaning as a sum of the most essential features. L.M. Vasilyev, noting advantages of such method, wrote that "discreteness is one of the essential properties of linguistic meaning, defining systemic nature of language" [Vasilyev, 1981, p. 5-6].
Within the framework of structural linguistics, or rather its branch called differential semasiology, interpretation of meaning of lexical units is carried out through a set of integral and differential semantic features. In this branch at different times a significant contribution was made by both domestic and foreign linguists like Lakoff, Vendler, Chafe, Jackendoff, Cook, Anderson, Dowty, Dick, Cruse, Freed, Lyons, Wierzbicka, Apresyan, Vasilyev, Kubryakova, Seliverstova, Shabanova, Amirova, Suleimanova, Shvayko, Sherstkova and others. [Lakoff, 1981; Vendler, 1967; Chafe, 1975; Jackendoff, 1993; Cook, 1979; Anderson 1977; Dowty, 1991; Dik, 1979; Cruse, 2004; Freed, 1979; Lyons, 1996; Wierzbicka 1983; Apresyan, 1995; Vasilyev, 1990, Kubryakova, 1992; Seliverstova, 2004; Shabanova, 1998; Amirova, 2002; Suleimanova, 2004; Shvayko 2012; Sherstkova, 2009].
Integral features - are those features which define membership of a word to a particular stratum of vocabulary or synonymous group. Concerning "teaching" verbs, its integral feature would be "a transfer of information from the subject to the object, which as a result of qualitative change of its structure becomes a carrier of such information." As for differential features they may be individual for each verb. They help to oppose one lexical unit to the other, thus limiting its meaning. With regard to the verb to instruct a distinctive feature would be "information transferred from the subject to the object is an algorithm of performing a certain activity or behavior."
The analysis of semantic structure of the predicate units with common meaning of "teaching" was implemented on the basis of two directions, namely:
1) in accordance with the semantic roles that the predicate assigns to actants of predicative situation (subject and object). According to this principle, each semantic role was interpreted on the basis of semantic features included in its structure.
2) based on the relation of predicate denotatum to the time axis. In accordance with this principle the predicates were classified into those, denotata of which are located on the time axis, and those, whose denotatum is to some extent abstracted from it. Here the so-called monogenic and heterogeneous predicates may be determined, i.e. denoting single one-time actions -denotatum of such predicates are located on the time axis in the form of points or segments of different lengths, and predicates denoting complex multi-stage actions, consisting of a set of simple ones and not having exact location on the time axis.
To explain the heterogeneous nature of the predicate J. Lakoff uses the concept of gestalt, proposed by the founders of German classical philosophy, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Immanuil Kant. Gestalt is understood as "a kind of complex concept consisting of a set of simple, elementary particles" [Lakoff, 1981, p. 350-368]. it is noted that the meaning of the gestalt is not derived from the meaning of individual parts it consists of.
Analysis of denotatum of predicates in relation to the time axis has shown that all of the studied lexical units, to a certain degree, are predicates of heterogeneous type, except cases when under the influence of a number of semantic processes in certain lexical-semantic variants "teaching" verbs transform to a class of single monogenic definite actions actualized at a certain moment of time. As for the analysis by semantic roles, using the test system designed specifically for the studied lexical stratum, a set of components was identified that make up each of the semantic roles of the actants.
The study revealed that the verb to teach in its keynote (prototypical) meaning, constitutes 97% of its usage, nominates the following semantics (About prototypical meaning of linguistic units, see. [Fillmore, 1983; Wierzbicka, 1983]). The subject, being a carrier of a certain system of values, transmits it in the form of information to the object, undergoing a qualitative change, also becomes a carrier of the given information. In this case we are dealing with the so-called "subjective knowledge". However, analysis of the linguistic material shows that such information may be, of "objective character" as well. In this case, the subject also imparts an object with a certain system of values, but this time it is universal for the whole mankind and does not depend on the subject. The truthfulness of these provisions is clearly illustrated by the following system of tests:
nPOGACMU CO tip CMCHHOfO 0GP/130nnHUn
I was spoilt by my parents, who taught me to be selfish and overbearing. - J. Austen
I was spoilt by my parents, who taught me to be selfish and overbearing, what was absolutely unacceptable in other families.
Normativity of this transformation suggests that the system of values imparted by the subject of the situation to the object has subjective nature, i.e. characteristic of a particular social group (family), and not society as a whole.
White-headed old gentleman, who lived near the little church, taught him to read and to write. - Ch. Dickens
*White-headed old gentleman, who lived near the little church, taught him to read and to write according to the standards of their town.
Non-normativity of such transformation confirms the fact that the information transmitted from the subject, to the object in this particular situation, is objective in nature, i.e., does not depend on the subject's views.
Thus, we are dealing with two different meanings of the verb to teach, semantic structure which can be formulated as follows:
teach 1
R S Semantic role of subject: Doer Force application: + Control over force application: +
Control of subject over qualitative modification of object: +
01 Nature of transmitted information: subjective knowledge
02 Semantic role of object: Qualitative Affectus
Semantic type of predicate: action
teach 2
R S Semantic role of subject: Doer Force application: + Control over force application: +
Control of subject over qualitative modification of object: +
01 Nature of transmitted information: objective knowledge
02 Semantic role of object: Qualitative Affectus
Semantic type of predicate: action
As seen above, metalinguistic models teach 1 and teach 2 are equal in all parameters except for one - "nature of the transmitted information". In the first case we are dealing with a subjective system of values, in the second - with the objective one. This semantic component is differential and determines the existence of two meanings of the verb to teach.
The verb to teach may have both Doer and Agentive as a subject. The difference between them lies in the fact that the semantic role of a Doer includes such components as "control of subject over qualitative modification of object", which at the denotative level is expressed as control of subject over the results, achieved by the object in the learning process. As for the semantic role of an Agentive, this component is not present in its semantic structure, i.e. qualitative change in the object is not controlled by the subject. The following transformation may serve as a proof of this hypothesis:
1. Mrs. Hate's extended harangues upon the subjects of wealth and position taught her to distinguish between degrees of wealth. - Th. Dreiser
Mrs. Hale's extended harangues upon the subjects of wealth and position unintentionally taught her to distinguish between degrees of wealth.
2. Going out, the same Broadway taught her a sharper lesson. - Th. Dreiser
Going out, the same Broadway unexpectedly taught her a sharper lesson.
3. She knew how to cook. I taught her myself. - S. Maugham
*She knew how to cook. I taught her myself accidentally.
Normativity of the first two transformations, namely compatibility of the verb to teach with adverbial modifiers and expressing randomness, namely unintentionally and unexpectedly with the subject in the semantic role of Agentive proves that such a component as a "control of subject over qualitative modification of object" is absent in this semantic role. As for the third transformation, where the subject appears in the semantic role of Doer, it does not sound normative with the adverbial modifier accidentally. Therefore we can conclude that the component "control of subject over qualitative modification of object" is present in the semantics of the subject and the action is controlled and predictable. Thus, we formulate a third variant of meaning of the verb to teach with the component "control of subject over qualitative modification of object" as a differential one. As for the parameter "nature of transmitted information" of semantic role, it is objective, as the component "control of application of force" and hence "control of subject over qualitative modification of object" are not present in the semantic role of the subject.
teach 3
R S Semantic role of subject: Agentive Force application: + Control over force application: -
Control of subject over qualitative modification of object: -
01 Nature of transmitted information: objective knowledge
02 Semantic role of object: Qualitative Affectus
Semantic type of predicate: process
The verb to direct has distinct semantics. Its original meaning is "the subject informs the object about the trajectory of relocation in space from the starting point to the destination."
He stood at the top of the stairs and directed people to the departments they wanted. - S. Maugham
In this sentence, the subject he affects the object people, which as a result changes its location in space. Thus, the semantic structure of the object contains a "change of position in space" component and the semantic role of the object is defined as a Spatial Affectus. In this meaning the verb to direct refers to the lexical-semantic group of the verbs of "control" or "influence" rather than "teaching" verbs. However, as a result of certain changes in its semantic structure the verb to direct may migrate into the category of "teaching" verbs, acquiring relevant meaning.
God keep you from harm and wrong, direct you, solace you. - Ch. Bronte
In the example given above the category of "space" as a result of metaphorical rethinking is transformed from physical three-dimensional into a mental one, where the "destination" is manifested not by geographical locations, but some "mental categories." In this case, the semantic role of the object shall contain such component as "qualitative change" and the semantic role itself is defined as.
HPOGACMU COG PCM CHHOfO OGP0300nHHtt
Thus, both meanings of the verb to direct may be presented in the form of metalanguage models with a corresponding number of semantic features:
direct 1
R S Semantic role of subject: Doer, Agentive Force application: + Control over force application: + (-)
01 Nature of transmitted information: relocation trajectory
02 Semantic role of object: Spatial Affectus
Relocation in space: +
Nature of change: temporal
Semantic type of predicate: action, process
direct 2
R S Semantic role of subject: Doer, Agentive Force application: + Control over force application: + (-)
01 Nature of transmitted information: values
02 Semantic role of object: Qualitative Affectus
Qualitative modification: +
Nature of change: temporal
Semantic type of predicate: action, process
The study analyzed all selected verbs, included in the group of synonymous verbs with common meaning of "teaching". This article demonstrates the methodology of definition of parameters of situation, in which a certain lexical unit is used. The disclosed information allowed to formulate metalinguistic models with corresponding set of semantic features. Such models help to clarify the area of nomination of each verb, and consequently to determine conceptual parameters of representation of the meaning of "teaching" verbs in lexicographical sources. Moreover, certain mechanisms have been established, under which restrictions on the use of progressive forms with "teaching" verbs are removed. The findings acquired during the study, namely the parameters of the situation, which demand usage of such verbs as to teach, to instruct, to direct, to guide, to inform, to improve, to convince, to train, to educate and to qualify, can be used in the formulation of entries of corresponding lexemes in the dictionaries.
References
Amirova O.G. Semantic model of English management verbs (based on the English verbs "govern", "rule", "manage", "run"): PhD theses. Samara, 2002. 180 p.
Anderson, J.M. On case grammar: Prologemato a theory of grammatical relations. London, 1977. 313 p.
Apresyan Y.D. Selected works: in 2 vol. M.: Shkola. Languages of Russian Culture, 1995 Vol. 1 Lexical Semantics. 472 p.
Chafe W. Meaning and the structure of language. M .: Nauka, 1975. 432 p.
Cook, W.A. Case Grammar: Development of the Matrix Model. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press, 1979. 223 p.
Cruse, A. Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004. 441 p.
Dik, S.C. Functional Grammar. - Amsterdam, etc.: North Holland Publ. CO., 1979. 230 p.
Dowty, D. Thematic Roles and Argument Selection // Language. 1991. Vol. 67. № 3. P. 547613.
Fillmore C. On the organization of semantic information in the dictionary // New in foreign linguistics. Issue XIV. Problems and methods of lexicography. M: Progress, 1983.
Freed, A.F. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht; London, 1979. 172 p.
Jackendoff, R. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993. 283 p. Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996. 376 p.
Kubryakova E.S. Action verbs through their cognitive characteristics // Logical Analysis of Language: Action Models. M.: Nauka, 1992., P. 84-90.
Lakoff G. Linguistic gestalts // New in foreign linguistics. M .: Progress, 1981. Issue X: Linguistic Semantics. P. 350-368.
Seliverstova O.N. Proceedings on semantics. M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004. 960 p.
Shabanova T.D. Semantic model of English vision verbs (Theoretical and experimental research). M.: InYaz RAN - Ufa, 1998. 199 p.
Shvayko Y.V. From semantics to cognitive science: designing semantic model of English "teaching" verbs: monograph [Text]. Ufa: Izd. BSPU, 2012. 111 p.
Suleimanova D.M. Semantic model of removing restrictions on the use of progressive form (based on the English stative verbs). PhD theses. Ufa, 2004. - 191 p.
Vasilyev L.M. Contemporary linguistic semantics. M.: Vysh. shk., 1990. 176 p.
Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, 1967. 204 p.
Wierzbicka A. Semantic primitives // Semiotics. M., 1983, P. 225-252.
Dictionaries
CCELD - Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. - by William Collins Sons & Co Ltd. London, 1990.
BBCED - BBC English Dictionary. - by John Sinclair. BBC English and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 1992.
WNWCD - Webster's New World College Dictionary. Forth Edition. - by Michael Agnes. IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 2001.
