CC BY
17
УДК 81-112 ВОРОНЦОВА Ю.А.
кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, кафедра иностранных языков, Брянский государственный технический университет E-mail: Voroncova.yuliya@mail.ru
UDC 81-112 VORONTSOVA J.A.
Candidate in Pedagogy, associate professor, Department of foreign languages, Bryansk State Technical University E-mail: Voroncova.yuliya@mail.ru
К ВОПРОСУ О СЛОВООБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЙ МОТИВАЦИИ В СИНХРОНИИ И ДИАХРОНИИ TO THE QUESTION OF WORD-FORMATIVE MOTIVATION IN SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY
Исследование рассматривает словообразовательную мотивацию в синхронии и диахронии как центральное понятие синхронного словообразования; раскрывает проблему произвольности/мотивированности знака; описывает синхронную мотивированность как формально-семантическое явление; анализирует значение производных в подсистеме лексической деривации; раскрывает семантические отношения между анализируемыми словами.
Ключевые слова: мотивация, произвольность, словообразование, однокоренные термины, синхрония, диахрония, фразеологизм
The study examines the word-formative motivation in synchronic and diachronic aspects as the central concept of synchronous word formation; reveals the problem of the sign arbitrariness/motivation; describes the synchronous motivation as a formal-semantic phenomenon; analyses the meaning of derivatives in the lexical derivation subsystem; reveals the semantic relations between the analyzed words.
Keywords: motivation, arbitrariness, word formation, cognate terms, synchrony, diachrony, idiom/fixed phrase.
1. Introduction
The language sign arbitrariness and motivation are the main coordinates of the sign existence and movement both in the synchronic and historical aspects.
Word-formative motivation is the central concept of synchronous word formation, since the main subjects of study in synchronous word formation are motivated words.
The problem of the sign arbitrariness/motivation was discussed even in the antiquity, but most clearly and explicitly it was described by F.de Saussure. "There are no languages where there is nothing motivated; but it is inconceivable to imagine a language where everything is motivated. All intermediate cases can be found between these two extreme points - the least organized and the least arbitrary. In all languages there are two kinds of elements which are entirely arbitrary and relatively motivated, but in very different proportions and this feature can be used in the language classification" [4, p. 165]. These proportions are very difficult to accurately judge, because there are many neologisms and borrowings in the language, which makes changes in the composition of not only motivated, but also unmotivated words although to a much lesser extent. However, several studies say the ratio of motivated and unmotivated words in the Russian language is 66:34, in French 57:43 [3, p. 41]. Researchers (VG. Gak, O.I. Blinova, A.N. Tikhonov and others) share the view there are much more motivated words than unmotivated ones, which is determined primarily by the importance and relevance of word-formative motivation study.
2. Problem of word formation
Word formation is, apparently, the only major section of linguistics, which has not established the generally accepted terminology for the most essential concepts - motivation, productivity, motivated, derivative, formed from... etc.
Even though the tradition of the derivational use of the terms "motivation", "motivated", etc. with the same root goes back to Ferdinand de Saussure and hasn't been seriously changed since, in Russian studies there have been used for a long time only the terms "derivation", "derivative", "derived from". This often simultaneously meant "synchronous communication", and "the actual word formation".
In Slavic studies the term "motivation" and "cognate terms" for synchronous connections were established after the publication of M. Dokulil's book. Later, the term "motivation" ("word-formative motivation") became firmly in use in Russian studies. There were monographs specifically devoted to the word-formative motivation. The term "motivation" was used.
On the other hand, there can be named both terms ("motivation" and "productivity" and "cognate words"), and in the majority of these works motivation is considered as a property of derived words. First published in 1946, G.O. Vinokur's article can be considered the beginning of this linguistic usage: "...there are words having in the structure quite conventional designations of the relevant reality objects, and the words making up not quite
© Воронцова Ю.А. © Vorontsova J.A.
conditional, motivated designation of reality objects, and the motivation of this designation kind is expressed in the relationship between the significant sound complexes, found in the structure of these words. These words have derivative basics" [2, p. 421].
Compare further similar wordings: "The words oakery, teacher, to clear, whitish, etc. are derivative, as they describe objects, events, or actions motivated in relation to what was stated by the deriving words oak, teach, clean or white which are in turn non-derivative, as they describe objects or phenomena of reality directly, regardless, unmotivated" [1, p. 37].
The term "motivation" and "cognate terms" have a long tradition of use in word formation, although in some works only the term "productivity" and "cognate terms" are still used.
The derivation in synchronic and diachronic aspects is understood differently. "From the synchronic point of view the derivatives include such words which at the moment of the language development are perceived as derived in the past from other cognate words, i.e. they preserve the known formal and semantic characteristics of secondariness, derivativeness" [6, p. 100].
Taking into account this tradition, following some researchers, it is advisable to call the synchronous relationship between formally and semantically related words the term "motivation", and the diachronic formation of the word "productivity".
3. Disputes about the concepts of "productivity" and "motivation"
To clearly distinguish the real origin of the word and its synchronous formal-semantic relations, it is necessary to differentiate the concepts of "productivity" and "motivation".
The concept of motivation (derivativeness) corresponds to the linguists' intuition, as it is defined or used in all works on word formation. According to researchers a motivated word is a word that is recognized as derived from another word that exists in the same language of the same era; and motivation is the relationship between words, where one of which is recognized as motivating (producing, original) and the other as motivated (derived, formed). The linguist's task is to define the properties of these words, i.e. to reveal the reason for their perception as motivating and motivated and thereby formulate the rules for determining the motivation direction.
Intuitively felt "figurativeness" of the word should be explicit, i.e. one is to state those properties of words which cause feeling of their derivation from another word present in the language.
The simultaneous motivation itself is comprehended ambiguously in the science and interpreted as a phenomenon of formal-semantic. It is used to denote a purely synchronous relationship, regardless of when the word was formed.
I.S. Ulukhanov suggests the following definition of the word-formative motivation - the relationship between two words that have the following characteristics: 1) both
words have the same root; 2) the meaning of one word is either fully included in the meaning of another word: house
- hut ("little house"), win - winner ("the one who won"), or identical to the lexical meaning of another word, or the syntactic position of these words are different (this includes pairs of words formed from different parts of speech: to run
- run, white - whiteness, quick - quickly and, according to E. Kurilovich, the second member of these pairs is a syntactic derivative), or these words differ stylistically with the identity of syntactic positions: book - notebook -booklet) [9, p. 10-11].
Bearing in mind the necessity for this delineation, N.A. Janko-Trinitskaya suggested introducing the term "output", instead of the term "derivative" and the term "basic" instead of the term "producing" [10, p. 503]. According to N.A. Janko-Trinitskaya, the terms "motivated" and "motivating" are unilaterally semantic. However, the terms "output" and "basic" are not used in the word formation terminology, perhaps, due to the fact that both terms "producing" and "motivating" have been used for a long time.
I.A. Shirshov proposes to assign to the term "motivation" the meaning of "semantic derivability" for the following reasons [8].
Firstly, the concept of "semantic derivability" is broader than the term "derivation (production)". For example, a word rim has undergone a formal simplification but the semantic connection with the word to trace has been preserved, so a rim is a metal plate covering and bending the wheel. This word is already unproductive, but still motivated.
Secondly, the semantics of the word, due to its motion, has the ability to change from prominence to associativity, so the word has its own motivation scale. In addition, the semantics feels the pressure of the word formation system, which manifests itself in polymotivation.
Thirdly, motivation has its own measurement system and its typology.
In describing the lexical meaning of the motivated word there is no sense to use the formulas of interpretation, common to all derivatives of the same derivational series, as in this case the individual is levelled in the general meaning. The very common meaning is based on the individual, lexical meaning and not vice versa. When describing the values of derivatives in the explanatory dictionary there arises a problem of the semantic definition nature.
When determining the value of a synchronously derived (motivated) word, it is important to take into account its relationship with the synchronously deriving (motivating) word.
E.A. Zemsky notes that "the semantic definition of such types of words as a raincoat - a kind of upper clothes, light coat, a snowdrop - a plant of the amaryllis family with a drooping flower, a pipe coil - a metal, glass or porcelain tube curved in a way of a coil and others, given in the dictionaries, contain elements of encyclopedism and are not suitable for word formation analysis, since they have "hidden" relationship between the structure of the word and
its semantics" [5, pp. 90-135]. Based on these definitions, all the words should be attributed to non-derivative, not having an internal form.
In describing the values of derivatives there are used two basic formulas of the ratio of motivated and motivating, depending on which derivation subsystem the word belongs to. The subsystem of syntactic derivation is characterized by abstractness of the meaning formant part, and, consequently, by the relation standardization between motivated and motivating in all the derivative groups. This subsystem uses a reference method to represent the meanings of motivated words, compare: walking is "an action on the verb to walk", blue is "sign on the adjective blue". It also includes part of motivated words with the modifying value, e.g.: a small table is diminutive to the table.
The meaning of derivatives in the lexical derivation subsystem is described not by referring to the value of motivating, but by including motivating in its interpretation, compare: tractor operator is "the one who drives the tractof', to bite is "to be in the habit to bite". In the subsystem of lexical derivation there are represented different types of motivation [8, p.10].
In recent years, the study of the word formation motivation has been intensified, and this is due to the fact that the analysis of lexical-semantic relations between the word and its derivative has a great theoretical and practical significance: the degree of including the meaning of one word in another word meaning can be different, and this explains the need to study the degrees of word motivation.
4. Practical results of the research
There is a large group of such words, which are in the zone between the motivated and unmotivated words, located (in accordance with its properties) closer to one of these poles. It is the existence of this border group of words that explains many disputes over motivation /unmotivation, transparency/intransparency of certain words, the debate about the synchronous word families. These disputes are reminiscent of an earlier controversy about the word dividedness.
For example, in some of these words which are etymo-logically formed on the phraseology basis, the motivation of the idiom is felt even in the present. "To twiddle one's thumbs" (in Russian «баклушничать») is "to be lazy, to do nothing (initially it meant to split a log on the thumbs, i.e. lumps for making shallow chip products of them) which is derived from the idiom "to beat off' (in Russian «бить баклуши»). The origin of the noun chip of wood (in Russian «баклуша») is considered to be unexplained. The semantics and structure of the words help to explain it as derived from the same bases as "wooden band or dugout dishes." [7, p. 32]
"Tofly into a rage" (in Russian «взбелениться») is the common saying "to come to extreme irritation, to be enraged". It came to the Russian literary language from the dialects in the XIXth century. It is the original suffix-prefix derivative on the basis of the fixed phrase "to go crazy". In the village in the backyard one can meet the high bush-
es with dirty yellowish, purple-veined flowers with an unpleasant odor. This is the henbane which is a very poisonous plant. Its seeds resemble poppy seeds, but those who eat them, lose their mind, rave, rage. The derivative significantly transforms the semantics of the motivator, actualizing this "excitations".
"To turn a blind eye to something" is an idiom that means to pretend not to have noticed it. This expression is said to have arisen as a result of the famous English naval hero Admiral Horatio Nelson, who, during the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801, is alleged to have deliberately raised his telescope to his blind eye, thus ensuring that he would not see any signal from his superior giving him discretion to withdraw from the battle.
"Once in a blue moon" refers to something that happens very infrequently. The origin of this phrase is confusing, a blue moon doesn't refer to the actual colour of the moon; it transforms the semantics of the motivator, it refers to when we see a full moon twice in one month. This happens every two to three years. It's thought that the word "blue" may have derived from the now obsolete word "belewe", which meant "to betray"; the "betrayer moon" was an additional spring full moon that would mean people would have to fast for an extra month during Lent.
The phrase "mind your P's & Q S" we hear a lot when adults are speaking to children. This is a term that has come to signify that you are taking care, watching what you are doing, getting it right. The origin of this idiom dates back to the time when local taverns, pubs and bars served up their patrons drinks by the quart and by the pint. Bar maids had to keep an eye on the customers. They had to pay special attention to who was drinking pints and who was drinking quarts, thus the term came to be known, "minding your P's and Q's." The semantics of the word supports the idea to be attentive.
If someone is said "to give us the cold shoulder", this means that they are disregarding, dismissing or otherwise ignoring us and treating us with disrespect. We are not welcome in their presence. The origin of the term has been disputed over the years. However, one viable theory is that it came from serving an unwanted guest a cold shoulder of mutton that had been sitting out for awhile, as opposed to a nice hot meal like the rest of the guests. Another theory is that it came from keeping one's back, or at least a shoulder, in between yourself and the unwanted person. In either case, the semantics of this phrase is disdain and disregard and the message is clear.
Many people consider the phrase "mindyour own bee S wax" simply a coined phrase mimicking the more common and literal phrase, "mind your own business." However, it turns out this has a more defined origin. Apparently, in the old days ladies would use a thin layer of bee's wax to smooth their complexion where they had severe acne. There were actually several phrases that were derived from this practice. If a lady looked too long or stared at another lady's face, they might say, "Mind your own bee's wax!" If the woman were to smile, it might crack the veneer of bee's wax on her face, thus there were used the phrase, "crack a
smile." Also, the phrase "losing face" came from the time when a girl would sit too close to the fire and the bee's wax would melt.
In the words, "to tongue-lash" (in Russian «раздраконить»), "to hood-wink" (in Russian «околпачить»), we can still talk about motivating values, even if they are based on associative connections. To tongue-lash is a slangy word meaning "to tick off much". It is translated into Russian with the help of the word dragon and adding suffixes to it. The dragon is a fabulous beast in the form of a winged fire-breathing serpent that devours humans and animals; therefore, in such a way people talk about a cruel ruthless man.
Compare the synonymic row: "to burst out picking to pieces" (in Russian «разнести в пух и прах»), "to burst out scolding severely" (in Russian «распечь»), "to give a walnut finish" (in Russian «разделать под орех»). The value of the derived words is based, apparently, on the connotations that indicate the negative attitude to anything. An important role in forming the derived meaning belongs to the phrase "to burst out doing smth", meaning "the intensity, completeness of action".
"To make a fool of' is a slangy word "to cheat, to fool, taking advantage of someone's naivete, simplicity". The semantics of the word is also supported by the derivational row: to cheat, to deceive, to fool.
The word "gossip" is defined as something that is said between two or more people, usually derogatory in nature, about someone else. Although gossip is just one word, it is actually derived from more than one word. Politicians of old had to depend on feedback to find out what was important to people in their jurisdiction. They did this by sending their assistants out to the local taverns and pubs. They would sip some ale, listen to people's conversations, thus learning what was on people's minds and what their concerns were. They were basically told to "go sip some ale", thus the term "gossip" was coined remaining the same semantics.
"Red Tape" is a very common idiom. We use the term "red tape" to denote anything that may delay or hold us up, whatever the process may be. It also refers to a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy or paperwork. This term originated from the fact that legal and official documents were tied up or bound with red tape since the 16th century. By doing so, it was often difficult to access them.
The idiom "it's Raining Cats and Dogs!" must sound like a very odd expression to someone just hearing it for the first time. It originated in England in the 1500's, when houses had thatched roofs. A thatch roof consisted of straw piled high, with no wood underneath. In cold, foggy England this was sometimes the only place for an animal to get warm. When it rained really hard, some of the animals would slip off the roof and wash up in the gutters on the street. Hence, the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs" ended up referring to a particularly heavy rain.
The given examples clearly demonstrate the presence in the modern Russian and English languages of a large group of words with varying motivation degrees. Modern science about the word structure faces a task, which is to create the theory of synchronous motivation degrees and to give the diachronic interpretation of these degrees, i.e. to reveal the diachronic factors influencing the word motivation loss or weakening. This task is far from being solved, due to poor knowledge of the material and its complexity and diversity.
5. Conclusion
A review of the recent works on the motivation types and degrees shows that their authors' focus was the question of the nature (first of all - the degree of proximity) of semantic relations between the analyzed words. This problem solution is closely connected with the problem of the correlation between the language system and its functioning in the individual's speech, since different individuals, depending on their linguistic competence, differently interpret the word meaning and structure: the same word can be evaluated as motivated by one native speaker and as unmotivated by another. This does not mean, however, that the issue of motivations should be addressed at the individuals' linguistic competence level and should not raise the question of the word motivation/unmotivation in the language system.
This problem solution has both theoretical and practical importance: the problem of motivation levels arises in preparing morphemic and word formation dictionaries (definition of word families) and in preparing etymological dictionaries (definition of words, needed in the etymological explanation).
Библиографический список
1. Балалыкина Э.А. Русское словообразование. К.: Изд-во Казан. ун-та, 1985. 184 с.
2. ВинокурГ.О. Заметки по русскому словообразованию. М.: Высш. шк. 1981. 241с.
3. Гак В.Г. Сопоставительная лексикология. На материале русского и французского языков. М.: Языки русской культуры. 1998. 763 с.
4. Де Соссюр Ф. Курс общей лингвистики. Труды по языкознанию. Ек.: Изд-во Урал. ун-та. 1999. 432 с.
5. Земская Е.А. Виды семантических отношений словообразовательной мотивации // Wiener Slavistischen Almanach, Bd. 13. 1984. С. 90-135.
6. НемченкоВ.Н. Современный русский язык: Словообразование. М.: ИЦ «Азбуковник». 1984. 255 с.
7. Шанский Н.М. Краткий этимологический словарь русского языка. М.: Просвещение. 1975. 543 с.
8. Ширшов И.А. Концепция гнездового толково-словообразовательного словаря / Актуальные проблемы современной русской лексикографии. Материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции. Елец. 2003. С. 8-14.
9. УлухановИ.С. Мотивация в словообразовательной системе русского языка. М.: ООО «Издательский центр «Азбуковник». 2005. 314 с.
10. Янко-Триницкая Н.А. Словообразование в современном русском языке. М.: Индрик. 2001. 504 с.
10.00.00 - OH^O^OrHHECKHE HAyKH 10.00.00 - PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
References
1. Balalykin A.E. Russian word formation. K.: Kazan State University, 1985. 184 p.
2. Vinokur, G.O. Notes on Russian word formation. M.: Vysshaya Shkola Publishers. 1981. 241 p.
3. Gak V.G. Comparative lexicology: on the material of French and Russian. M.: Languages of Russian culture. 1998. 763 p.
4. De Saussure F. Course of General linguistics. Works on linguistics. Yekaterinburg State University. 1999. 432 p.
5. Zemskaya E.A. Types of semantic relations of word-formative motivation // Wiener Slavistischen Almanach, Bd. 13. 1984. Pp. 90-135.
6. Nemchenko V.N. Modern Russian language: word formation. M.: LLC "Publishing center "Azbukovnik". 1984. 255 p.
7. Shan N.M. A concise etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M.: Prosveshcheniye. 1975. 543 p.
8. Shirshov I.A. Concept of nesting explanatory word-building dictionary // Topical problems of modern Russian lexicography. Materials of the all-Russian scientific-practical conference. Yelets. 2003. pp. 8-14.
9. Ulyanov I.S. Motivation in word formation system of the Russian language. M.: LLC "Publishing center "Azbukovnik". 2005. 314 p.
10. Janko-Trinitskaya N.A. Word formation in modern Russian language. M.: Indrik. 2001. 504 p.
