CC BY
55
Kamala Jafarova Avadir gizi, associated professor, PhD., of philological sciences,
Department of Education, Azerbaijan University of Languages Baku city, Azerbaijan E-mail: matlabm@yandex.ru
INTERFERENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF WORD CO-OCCURRENCE
Abstract: The article is devoted to interference in the context of word co-occurrence. Currently, one of the pressing issues of linguistics remains that of word co-occurrence. Its importance is evident: the most complex and conflicting language norms refer to co-occurrence. Within this paper we'll consider the word co-occurrence as a problem of cross-language interference. Interference often results in the failure of mutual understanding among people, thus the addressing co-occurrence from the perspective of interference is of a major importance as it serves to anticipate errors and facilitate their correction. The paper also considers main types of word co-occurrence that generates interference.
Keywords: interference; bilingualism; word co-occurrence; language contacts; lingual interference.
Introduction. Word co-occurrence is one of the Thus, interference often leads to the violation of most important aspects of the lingual interference. norms of co-occurrence of the receiving language
The lingual interference is usually understood as changes in the structure or elements of structure of one language under the impact of the other.
Consequently, interference results from the interaction of several (usually two) languages and may cause both positive and negative effects. In the latter case, due to the difference of various elements of language systems there occur errors in people's speech, which may create major obstacles in the process of communication.
When a person develops its speech in a foreign language (L2), he combines the words of this language he uses under the rules of his native one (L1). No errors will occur in the speaker's speech if the rules of collocation fall together in both languages. However, such rules often disagree that causes errors of cooccurrence. As in the combination of one words with the others, the interrelation ofits three mechanisms -lexical, semantic and grammatical ones - occurs, the lingual interference (depending on its type) may lead to errors in any level of co-occurrence.
(L2). So we can say that the study of co-occurrence from the perspective of interference is extremely important as it helps us to solve both methodical and linguistic problems.
The main factors which define word co-occurrence are its meaning, lexical peculiarities and grammatical properties. Accordingly, three types of co-occurrence are traditionally distinguished: semantic, lexical and morphosyntactic (or syntactic). Morphosyntactic co-occurrence is defined by the belonging of words to the parts of speech, the lexical one - by the selectivity of lexical items and the semantic one - by the semantic concord - the components of word combinations must not have contradictory semes [3, 483]. When it comes to the types of co-occurrence, it is as well to remember that all the types of co-occurrence are organically related and the boundaries between them are fuzzy enough.
Lexical co-occurrence is the most hardly deter-minable. There exist the commonly held opinion that it is obvious in the selectivity of lexical items
which is defined not only by the lexical meaning of the word but many other factors, such as grammatical, usual, stylistic, connotative, phraseological ones, etc. All these factors form lexical co-occurrence of this word. In other words, lexical co-occurrence is defined by individual characteristics of the word, not the class of words it relates to.
N. Z. Kotelova specifies the word co-occurrence as "a set and conditions of realization of word extenders, paradigmatics of its syntagmatic properties, its change of relation", in other words, the analyst qualifies word co-occurrence as a set of its selection-al features [5, 51].
N. Z. Kotelova distinguishes syntactic and lexical co-occurrences only. She defines the syntactic word co-occurrence as the complex and properties of syntactic links it may potentially have, a set and conditions of realization of syntactic links", but the lexical one as "a set and conditions of realization of lexical extenders" [5, 52].
Lexical co-occurrence is divided into absolute and relational. Absolute co-occurrence is a co-occurrence that is inherent to the word as such, irrespective of conditions of its realization (for example, burn to the ground, drop eyes, sworn enemy); relational one is a co-occurrence that realizes on one or another condition (for instance, run across the field, run toward the house, go over to the enemy) [5, 53]. Absolute co-occurrence cannot serve as a means of distinction of meanings of a multivalent word whereas relational one can.
Grammatical co-occurrence. D. N. Shmelyov defines grammatical co-occurrence as possibility to use words in certain constructions. Each lexical unit has a fairly strict set of syntactic links with other lexical units. The nature of such links (namely, morphosyntactic co-occurrence itself) defines the belonging of this lexical unit to a certain grammatical category (part of speech, grammatical class or type). Such an approach to this type of co-occurrence is traditional, but there exist other points of view. So, V. V. Morkovkin offers to describe a gram-
matical co-occurrence ofword from the perspective of characteristics of words that are able to collocate with them: "information on the part of speech or grammatical status of B and on the grammatical form in which B must be is a morphosyntactic cooccurrence A or morphosyntactic restrictions of cooccurrence A" [6, 34].
From this point of view we can speak about the obligatory and optional (non-obligatory) cooccurrence, depending upon the necessity of the use of extender to this word. In case of the obligatory co-occurrence there should always be a dependent component, but as soon as the optional one is concerned, the extenders are non-obligatory. In this case, selectional properties of the key word (its ability to be extended using the dependent one) is called active co-occurrence and the ability of the dependent word to link with the key one is passive co-occurrence.
However, morphosyntactic co-occurrence is defined not only by grammatical properties of the word. L. D. Chesnokova distinguishes three types of morphosyntactic co-occurrence depending on the factors that define it.
Morphosyntactic co-occurrence motivated by lexical meaning of the word. In case of polysemy such type of morphosyntactic co-occurrence may act as differentiator of lexical and semantic variants of this word, namely it is "potentiality of both combination of words and differentiation of meanings." In this case the grammatical meaning of the word does not have a direct impact on its co-occurrence.
Morphosyntactic co-occurrence stipulated by lexical and grammatical features of the word. Such co-occurrence is caused "when the general lexical and grammatical meaning" of this word interact.
Morphosyntactic co-occurrence caused by grammatical factors only. The lexical meaning of the word in this case in no way impact on its co-occurrence [1, 6].
Thus, morphosyntactic co-occurrence depends not only upon grammatical but lexical and semantic factors; first of all it depends on the lexical meaning
of the word. This results in close relationship of mor-phosyntactic co-occurrence with the semantic one.
Semantic co-occurrence is defined by the denotative aspect of the word. In this case we are referring to the ability of the word to combine with a whole class of other words associated with it by the commonality of meaning. According to V. G. Gak, "the principal law of word combination is that in order for two words make a right combination, they must have one common seme except for specific ones" [2, 27]. It is a seme which in the French linguistic tradition is generally called as classeme. Any seme that doesn't have to be of the utmost importance for this utterance can be a classeme.
The law of semantic concord by V. G. Gak is central for characterizing semantic co-occurrence. So, V. V. Morkovkin defines semantic co-occurrence as "one which is set by pointing out the seme that must be present at the meanings of all words filling in the appropriate syntactic and semantic position [2, 24]. It should be noted that V. V. Morkovkin singled out the semantic co-occurrence within lexical one.
Stylistic co-occurrence is usually considered within the stylistics of text and connected with the stylistic connotations of language units. Stylistically marked words freely combine with lexemes that have the identical colouring. Neutral words that have bookish and colloquial synonyms freely combine only with neutral ones, bookish words with bookish ones and colloquial words with colloquial ones.
The combination of words that have a various stylistic colouring is restricted in use.
Stylistic restrictions of word co-occurrence as compared with grammatical and lexical ones have no character of absolute, "rigid" norms. In this case much depends upon not only stylistic formation of words but also particular conditions and purposes for their use. The combination of stylistically inho-mogeneous words often serves as a way of artistic expression making sense in a jocular or ironic context. Here the stylistic restrictions are intentionally broken with the purpose to create a certain artistic
effect. But unmotivated break of lines of stylistic cooccurrence often results in stylistic errors. Whether the combination of stylistically inhomogeneous words is an error or stylistic device, one can define only by analysing particular text [8, 65].
Phraseological co-occurrence (sometimes called as context-sensitive) is specific for words with a phraseologically linked meaning. It is national and inherent in a given particular word in a given particular language only.
Phraseological collocations are characterized by stability, an idiomatic nature and a figurative meaning. When using phraseological units one should consider their semantics, a figurative character, lexical grammatical structure, emotional expressive and functional stylistic colouring, as well as the combination of phraseme with the other words in the composition of sentence. Unmotivated change in the composition of phraseme (its reduction and extension, substitution of one of the components without the extension of composition of phraseological unit or with its simultaneous extension) or structural-grammatical changes, as well as the distortion of the figurative meaning of collocation are the result of the break of phraseological co-occurrence [8, 69].
In terms of the possibility or impossibility to enter into syntagmatic relations, they distinguish: 1) phraseological units with a wide co-occurrence (to promise the moon, a white crow, certain as preaching); 2) phraseological units with a restricted co-occurrence (at full speed); 3) phraseological units with a self-contained co-occurrence (roll in money, to give a long song and dance) [4, 128].
The issue of differentiation oflexical, semantic and phraseological co-occurrence is still unresolved. Some analysts (N. Z. Kotelova and I. A. Melchuk) consider the lexical and phraseological co-occurrence to be a common type of co-occurrence, the others propose that above-mentioned types ofco-occurrence should be differentiated. As there are no absolutely free word combinations but more or less linked ones, one can
speak of the differentiation of semantic, lexical and the majority of the analysts and came to a conclusion
phraseological co-occurrence [9, 30]. that the analysis of co-occurrence in terms of cross-
We scrutinized main types of word co-occur- language interference seemed to be extremely im-
rence that were one way or another differentiated by portant as it helped to foresee occurrence of errors.
References:
1. Chesnokova L. D. Grammatical co-occurrence of words in a simple sentence and its determining factors // Co-occurrence of language units. Rostov,- 1968.
2. Gak V. G. Linguistic transformation - M.,-1998.
3. Gak V. G. Valency //Linguistic encyclopaedia - M.: Soviet encyclopaedia,- 1990.
4. Golub I. B., Rosental D. E., Telenkova M. A. Modern Russian language - M.: Iris-Press,- 2002.
5. Kotelova N. Z. Meaning of a word and its co-occurrence - L.: Science,- 1975.
6. Morkovin V. V. Experience of ideographic description of vocabulary (analysis of words with time meaning in Russian) - M.,- 1977.
7. Muratova Z. G. Bilingualism and some issues for learning a foreign language // Linguo-didactic analysis.-M.: Publishing house of Moscow State University,- 1987.- P. 167-175.
8. Pleschenko T. P., Fedotova N. V., Chechet R. G. Stylistics and culture of speech: Practical lessons: Manual for graduate students / Jointly edited by P. P. Shuba.- Minsk: TetraSystems,- 1999.
9. Vlavatskaya M. V. Combinatorial semasiology (semantics and words co-occurrence) / World of science, culture and education. Scientific journal, - 2009.- 7 (19).- P. 29-34.
