CC BY
8
УДК 811.1111
DOI: 10.15593/2224-9389/2022.3.3
Научная статья
E.G. Alekseyev, I.A. Anashkina, I.I. Konkova
Ogarev Mordovia State University, Saransk, Russian Federation
Received: 28.06.2022 Accepted: 19.08.2022 Published: 01.09.2022
LEXICAL MEANS OF COHESION IN AN ORAL DISCOURSE OF A COMMENTED SPORTS EVENT
The authors studied the means of lexical cohesion in English oral discourse of a commented sports event - a broadcast of the 2014 World Cup football match between the Netherlands and Spain commented by the British commentators Jon Champion and Stewart Robson. The analyzed time slot of the match is 46 minutes (halftime). The authors use the classification of means of cohesion proposed by M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan. The frequency analysis of the lexical composition of the oral discourse analyzed allowed us to find more prominent and more frequently used words and the most frequent lexical units to express emotive assessment. The "world cloud" technique is used in order to find out more prominent and more frequent words in the text. The morphological analysis of the discourse of a commented football match made it possible to determine the part-of-speech-composition of the discourse of the commented football match. Analysis of the means of text cohesion through repetition of lexical items and their alternation in different forms resulted in singling out some typical models. Our findings suggest that the most frequent means of cohesion are identical and root repetitions (69 % of the total number of examples). Use of synonyms (18 %) and antonyms (7 %) also serve the purpose of lexical cohesion of the discourse. Broad-meaning substitutions (collocations) occur in 5% of the total.
Keywords: lexical cohesion, repetition, lexical composition, morphological analysis, oral discourse, emotive assessment.
Ф® 1
Эта статья доступна в соответствии с условиями лицензии / This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Е.Г. Алексеев, И.А. Анашкина, И.И. Конькова
Мордовский государственный университет имени Н.П. Огарева, Саранск, Республика Мордовия, Российская Федерация
ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ СРЕДСТВА КОГЕЗИИ В ЗВУЧАЩЕМ ДИСКУРСЕ СПОРТИВНОГО РЕПОРТАЖА
Исследованы средства лексической когезии в звучащем дискурсе английского спортивного репортажа - трансляции футбольного матча чемпионата мира 2014 года между Нидерландами и Испанией, которую комментировали британские комментаторы Джон Чемпион и Стюарт Робсон. Анализируемый временной интервал матча составляет 46 минут (перерыв). Авторы используют классификацию средств когезии, предложенную М.А.К. Холлидеем и Р. Хасаном. Частотный анализ лексического состава анализируемого звучащего дискурса позволил найти более употребляемые слова и наиболее частые лексические единицы для выражения эмоциональной оценки. Техника "облако слов" используется для того, чтобы выявить более заметные и часто встречающиеся слова в тексте. Морфологический анализ дискурса спортивного репортажа футбольного матча позволил определить частеречный состав данного вида дискурса. Анализ средств когезии текста посредством повторения лексических единиц и их чередования в разных формах позволил выделить несколько типичных моделей. Результаты показывают, что наиболее частыми средствами когезии являются идентичные и корневые повторы (69 % от общего числа примеров). Использование синонимов (18 %) и антонимов (7 %) также служит цели лексической когезии дискурса. Коллокации встречаются в 5 % от общего числа.
Ключевые слова: лексическая когезия, повтор, лексический состав, морфологический анализ, устный дискурс, эмотивная оценка.
Introduction
It is commonly accepted that discourse is a complex unity of sociocultural, ethnic, linguistic, psycholinguistic, individual and communicative characteristics. Oral discourse, more often than not, is viewed on as an object of multidisciplinary research, requiring the attention of acousticians, linguists, sociolinguists, psycholinguists, linguodidacticians, and ethnolinguists. Though the term "discourse" has been used in its linguistic meaning since the mid of XX century, it has not yet acquired its generally recognized definition. The authors of this article share the definition of the term worked out by N.D. Arutyunova [1, p. 136-137]: "... text in the aggregate of its extralinguistic, pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological and other factors. ..."; ".speech 'plunged' into life ..."
The category of discourse cohesion is widely discussed by Russian and Euro-American linguists: N.D. Aroutyunova [2], T. van Dejik [3], I.R. Gal'perin [4], T.V. Milevskaya [5; 6], O.I. Moskal'skaya [7], Ch.K. Naimanova [8], V.V. Nikitin [9], O.V. Zagorovskaya [10], M.A. Halliday, R. Hasan [11].
Поступила: 28.06.2022 Одобрена: 19.08.2022 Принята к печати: 01.09.2022
Theoretical framework
The main approach to discourse is based on the thesis that incoherent text does not exist. Thus, T.V. Milevskaya [6, p. 38] states that "coherence is a prerequisite of successful communication: incoherent text cannot be decoded adequately by the addressee."
O.I. Moskalskaya [7, p. 176] defines cohesion as a combination of mechanisms of lexical and structural-grammatical connection, which are expressed by language units. To be more exact, parts of a text are interlocked meaningfully on the basis of the intention and background information, general contents of the narration, with the help of a peculiar composition and introduction of subordinate topics such as division into paragraphs, types of the beginning and ending, alteration of dialogues and monologues, development of the topics.
An orderly classification of means of cohesion can be based on different foundations, and that is why scholars offer different approaches to their analysis. Thus, M. Halliday and R. Hasan [11] wrote that the answer to the question whether a sentence or several sentences make a discourse depends on the relations inside the sentence and between the sentences. Coherent relations in the text evolve when an interpretation of one discourse element depends on that of another. The scholars came to the conclusion that decoding of one element is impossible without taking into account the others.
Statement of the problem
The classification of means of cohesion in a commented sports event was based on the work of M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan [11]. They distinguished, on the one hand, reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and, on the other hand, lexical cohesion, but there is not any hard and fast demarcation between these two groups. The authors of this paper concentrated their attention on the means of lexical cohesion.
The research was carried out on an English oral discourse of a commented sports event - football match. It was a broadcast of the American sports channel ESPN of the group stage of 2014 World Cup Championship between the Netherlands and Spain. The analyzed time slot of the match is 46 minutes (halftime). The match was commented by the British commentators Jon Champion h Stewart Robson [12].
For finding more prominent and more frequently used words in the text under analysis the "world cloud" technique was used [13]. Analysis of the means of text cohesion with the help of repetition of lexical items and their alternation in different forms resulted in singling out some typical models.
Discussion
Lexical cohesion as part of the language system presupposes the relations of repetition, synonymic relations and others of the semantic level. Text cohesion is built up with the help of repetition of words and reiteration of their forms, words
and word combinations belonging to the same thematic field. So, lexical cohesion can be generated with the reiteration of a lexical element, by use of an associated word or word combination, by synonymic or antonymic repetition, by hyperonym-hyponym. Reiteration is a way of linking of the parts of a text to refer to the repeated use of a lexical item, or the use of a synonymous lexical item [14]. According to I.V. Arnold [15, p. 244], repetition is a figure of speech; it consists in repeating sounds, words, morphemes, synonyms or syntactic constructions in a fairly tight row.
In the oral discourse analyzed three types of lexical repetition (reiteration) have been discovered:
- identical;
- synonymic;
- periphrastic.
Besides identical, repetition can be partial, when the repeated part is a root lexeme. I.R. Galperin [4, p. 265] explains the essence of this type of repetition - a noun or a verb, having an extended meaning, is attributed by a lexeme with the same root which reverts the former to its primary meaning.Periphrasis is characterized by the change of the name of an object or phenomenon for a word combination or a sentence. A periphrasis usually elicits the most important characteristics of an object or phenomenon and names it with a word combination.
The lexical composition of an oral discourse makes its most important part, because the choice of words defines the intensity of its influence on listeners. Use of colloquialisms and colloquial style in the commentaries on the football match are determined by momentariness (brevity) of the text perception, as the listener is not able to return to the previous context in case if any difficulties in understanding might occur, which leads to introducing key words and phrases rather than anaphoric reference.
The discourse under study was subjected to a frequency analysis of its lexical composition. The Internet resource "Word Clouds" [13] was used. This on-line resource gives a visual presentation of the quantity of words in the form of a cloud of key words. The more frequently the key word occurs in the text, the bigger is the font of this word. This analysis helps to find the words with the highest frequency, and consequently, with the highest meaningful load.
Figure 1 presents a cloud of key words that are most frequently used in the speech of the commentators. These words are the articles "a, the", the prepositions "in, for, of, to", the verbs "be, have", the pronouns "he, his, they, it" and the conjunction "and".
The cloud of key words in figure 2 is formed without taking into account form words. It presents the notional words such as the players' names: van Persie, Robben, Diego Costa, Silva, Blind, Xabi Alonso, Jordi Alba, Nigel de Jong, the names of the countries of the teams: Spain h Dutch.
Fig. 1. Results of frequency segmentation of words of an oral discourse of a commented sports event with the help of wordle.net resource to single out the most frequently used words
Fig. 2. A cloud presentation of frequency segmentation of words of an oral discourse of a commented sports event with the help of wordle.net resource to single out the most frequently used notional words (without taking into account the frequency of form words)
The resource registered the following thematic and specialized lexical units:
chance, team, number, challenge, touch, time, ESPN, offside, foul, mistake, card, score, goal, ball, kick, pitch, flee, run, runner, runaway, pass, line, penalty, half, confrontation, competition, match, fixture, game, team, country, side, title, champion, club, cap, coach, scorer, defender, goalkeeper, referee, player, striker, final, captain, centre, middle, wing, back, forward, opposition, possession, midfield, FIFA, championship, stadium, World Cup. So, the visual presentation of the fre-
quency of the key words helps to define the thematic focus of the discourse -commented football match.
Figure 3 presents the results of the morphological analysis of the discourse of a commented football match in the terms of parts of speech. The nominal lexis (40 %) considerably prevails over verbal lexis (17 %). To be more precise, quantitative prevalence belongs to nouns (35 %), proper names (18 %), especially the names of the players, clubs and countries used in the course of the commentaries.
Fig. 3. Part - of - speech composition of the discourse of the commented football match
Further analysis helped to find out the most frequent lexical units to express emotive assessment:
- nouns: chance, occasion, gesture, excellence, confrontation, competition, clever;
- adjectives: good, wrong, wonderful, top, great, full, significant, poor, interesting, competitive;
- verbs of movement or action: to make, to go, to come, to try, to play, to lose, to take, to shield, to push, to catch, to want, to win, to start, to run, to produce, to like, to hope, to expect, to award;
- adverbs: just, well, again, very, too, really, quite, enough, suddenly, simply;
- idioms: fiesta of football, legal retribution, common sadness, goal list, to treat the ball, crash landing, to win this poker, for better fortune, swan song, to shield the ball, to be red carded, rough-house tactics.
As it is clear from the examples, the commentators of this match did not express a strong emotive assessment. It is rather mild.
Lexical
reiterations: 69%
■KjSEp 13 Ep Antonyms: 7% Collocations: 5%
;;:; Y-—" Synonyms: 18% 44 i | \
Fig. 4. Ratio of the means of lexical cohesion in the discourse of a commented football match
Figure 4 presents the comparative statistics of the means of lexical cohesion. Lexical reiteration, as it is seen from figure 4, can be considered the most frequently used in the discourse of a commented sports event which proves the thesis that lexical units are central in the process of encoding of information.
Thus, in the following example the two utterances are connected on the basis of the common meaning and reiteration of the noun ball which provides the cohesion of the text:
So did de Guzman, he was the player that was caught on the ball. The good pass as well to Diego Costa, just didn't get out with his flick into his path on the left side. Cillessen didn't look particularly shocked when that ball came to him [12].
In the next example the repetition of the main players' proper names does the same to this text:
Here's the problem that Holland have got - the player in the right back position on that occasion was Robin van Persie, and playing through the middle was Arjen Robben. Arjen Robben might be quite pleased about playing through him, though I'm not sure, pulling van Persie, they're too pleased about playing out on that right hand side at times [12].
Another means of lexical cohesion found in the discourse analysed are those of repetition of words having the same root used in different combinations. Thus, in the following example the root "- play -" was used three times: Two of the players are currently with the Rotterdam club, one of them, Vlaar used to be with them. That's where van Persie wants to be playing - right through the middle. Here's pushing Robin out to the right hand side. Schneider is playing in behind him [12].
Lexical repetition in the form of enumeration of pieces of factual information can be considered a special case which is typical of sports commentaries when the names of the countries, teams, players' names, the results of games etc. are enumerated by the commentators. Enumeration of this kind can be structured
on different language levels: phrases, nominative groups, sentences. In the following example the names of the players passing the ball are enumerated:
David Silva. Tackle by Nigel de Jong. Daley Blind. Pique. Robben. To Blind whose father Danny is one of Louis van Gaal 's assistants on the bench.
The same is exemplified with the names of sports clubs and countries: As he's played for so many top clubs, Bayern currently, previously had PSV, Chelsea, Real Madrid; he would have played for Ajax.
Fonte Nova in Salvador, wonderful first forty five minutes here between the World Champions, Spain and those who love to oppose them, Holland [12].
Synonymic substitution provides chain cohesion of the discourse not so often, as statistics shows it makes only 18 %. The synonymic cohesion is a special case of the actual semantic delimitation of the discourse. Using a synonym the speaker adds some new information (rheme) to the already given by the first word. The non-coinciding sememes of a phrase elucidate some new facets of an object or phenomenon defined. In the long run, synonymic repetitions make the commentator's speech more effective reflecting the nuances of the game. The commentaries are addressee oriented. The following example illustrates synonymic substitution of the players' names. One of the most frequently mentioned name is Robin van Persie, who had scored the most important goal to the Spanish gates. Besides mentioning the name, the synonymic substitution of the name by the words player, captain, goal scorer h Manchester United striker: Here's the problem that Holland have got - the player in the right back position on that occasion was Robin van Persie, and playing through the middle was Arjen Robben... One captain will be trying to beat the other: van Persie the goal scorer, Casillas the goalkeeper... One hang up for Robin van Persie. And the foul goes against the Manchester United striker [12] is quite frequent. The chain repetition is used by the commentator to avoid redundant repetitions, though in some cases they are evaded with the help of the pronoun he.
Antonymic cohesion is one more type of lexical cohesion registered in the discourse. Antonymic pairs organize the semantic scope of the text. It is contextu-ally determined. This mode of cohesion can be exemplified by the juxtaposition of the teams Spain - Netherlands, their players Casillas - van Persie, or their attributes enigma - excellence: To continue our coverage of Spain against Netherlands please turn to ESPN... One captain will be trying to beat the other: van Persie the goal scorer, Casillas the goalkeeper... Spanish excellence against the enigma that is the Dutch, the classic confrontation on day 2 of the FIFA World Cup [12].
Collocations can also provide lexical cohesion. The semantic relationship between the cataphoric referent and antecedent can be of different types, such as the whole and a part (hypo - hyperonym), an element - the multitude, reason -consequence. A case of cataphoric cohesion is usually presented by a noun of broad semantics: thing, man, job, business, matter, object, people, person, place, question and others. This substitution was registered in 5%. For example:
That man there made a good job, stood tall, didn 't go down too early... And Diego Costa decides a clever thing to maximize every contact he has [12].
Conclusions
The analysis of the lexical means of discourse cohesion made it possible to conclude that the most frequent means of cohesion are identical and root repetitions (69 % of the total number of examples). Use of synonyms (18 %) and antonyms (7 %) also serve the purpose of lexical cohesion of the discourse. Broad-meaning substitutions (collocations) occur in 5 % of the total.
Lexical cohesion increases expressiveness of the discourse which is important for attracting the listeners' attention to the main ideas of the commentaries and, on the whole, building up the effectiveness of communication.
Список литературы
1. Арутюнова Н.Д. Дискурс // Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. -М.: Сов. энциклопедия, 1990. - С. 136-137.
2. Арутюнова Н.Д. Синтаксис // Общее языкознание. Внутренняя структура языка. - М.: Наука, 1972. - С. 297-331.
3. Van Dijk T.A. Text and Context. - London-New York: Longman, 1977. - 302 p.
4. Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. - М.: Ко-мКнига, 2006. - 144 с.
5. Милевская Т.В. Связанность как категория дискурса и текста (когнитивно-функциональный и коммуникативно-прагматический аспекты): дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. - Ростов н/Д, 2001. - 390 с.
6. Милевская Т.В. Грамматика дискурса. - Ростов н/Д: Изд-во РГУ, 2003. - 336 с.
7. Москальская О.И. Грамматика текста. - М.: Высшая школа, 1981. - 183 с.
8. Найманова Ч.К., Илияз Кызы Н. The role of lexical cohesion in revealing Ernest Hemingway's Iceberg style of writing // Наука, новые технологии и инновации Кыргызстана. - Бишкек, 2019. - № 8. - С. 234-236.
9. Никитин В.В. Когезия как средство связи в тексте // Вопросы региональной экономики. - Королев, 2010. - № 4. - С. 88-99.
10. Загоровская О.В., Ким Г.В. Когезия и средства ее выражения в современной русской электронной непрофессиональной письменной речи // Известия Воронеж. гос. пед. ун-та. - Воронеж, 2019. - № 4 (285). - С. 218-221.
11. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English. - London, 1976. - 367 p.
12. Entertainment and Sports Programming Network [Электронный ресурс]. -URL: https://www.espn.com/ (дата обращения: 13.06.2022).
13. Tool for generating word clouds from text [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://www.wordle.net/ (дата обращения: 13.06.2022).
14. Crystal D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. - 6th ed. - Malden: MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. - 2008. - 560 p.
15. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика. Современный английский язык. - М.: Флинта, Наука, 2002. - 383 с.
References
1. Arutiunova N.D. Diskurs [Discourse]. Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar', Moscow, Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1990, pp. 136-137.
2. Arutiunova N.D. Sintaksis [Syntax]. Obshchee iazykoznanie. Vnutrenniaia struktura iazyka, Moscow, Nauka, 1972, pp. 297-331.
3. Van Dijk T.A. Text and context. London, New York, Longman, 1977, 302 p.
4. Gal'perin I.R. Tekst kak ob"ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniia [Text as an object of linguistic research]. Moscow, KomKniga, 2006, 144 p.
5. Milevskaia T.V. Sviazannost' kak kategoriia diskursa i teksta (kognitivno-funktsional'nyi i kommunikativno-pragmaticheskii aspekty) [Connectivity as a category of discourse and text (cognitive-functional and communicative-pragmatic aspects)]. Doctor's degree dissertation. Rostov-on-Don, 2001, 390 p.
6. Milevskaia T.V. Grammatika diskursa [Grammar of discourse]. Rostov-on-Don, RSU, 2003, 336 p.
7. Moskal'skaia O.I. Grammatika teksta [Text grammar]. Moscow, Vysshaia shkola, 1981, 183 p.
8. Naimanova Ch.K., Iliiaz Kyzy N. The role of lexical cohesion in revealing Ernest Hemingway's Iceberg style of writing. Nauka, novye tekhnologii i innovatsii Kyrgyzstana, Bishkek, 2019, no. 8, pp. 234-236.
9. Nikitin V.V. Kogeziia kak sredstvo sviazi v tekste [Cohesion as a means of communication in the text]. Voprosy regional'noi ekonomike, Korolev, 2010, no. 4, pp. 88-99.
10. Zagorovskaia O.V., Kim G.V. Kogeziia i sredstva ee vyrazheniia v sovremennoi russkoi elektronnoi neprofessional'noi pis'mennoi rechi [Cohesion and means of its expression in modern Russian electronic non-professional writing]. Izvestiia Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2019, no. 4 (285), pp. 218-221.
11. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English. London, 1976, 367 p.
12. Entertainment and sports programming network. Available at: https://-www.espn.com/ (accessed 13.06.2022).
13. Tool for generating word clouds from text. Available at: http://www.wordle.net/ (accessed 13.06.2022).
14. Crystal D. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, 6th ed., 560 p.
15. Arnol'd I.V. Stilistika. Sovremennyi angliiskii iazyk [Stylistics. Modern English]. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka, 2002, 383 p.
Сведения об авторах
АЛЕКСЕЕВ Евгений Геннадьевич
e-mail: proJyal@mail.ru
Кандидат технических наук, доцент кафедры информационной безопасности и сервиса, Мордовский государственный университет им. Н.П. Огарева (Саранск, Российская Федерация)
About the authors
Evgeny G. ALEKSEYEV
e-mail: profyal@mail.ru
Cand. Sc. (Engineering), Associate Professor, Chair of Cyber Security and Service, Ogarev Mordovia State University (Saransk, Russian Federation)
АНАШКИНА Ирина Александровна
e-mail: iraida952@gmail.com
Доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры английского языка для профессиональной коммуникации, Мордовский государственный университет им. Н.П. Огарева (Саранск, Российская Федерация)
КОНЬКОВА Инна Игоревна
e-mail: mirna_13@mail.ru
Кандидат филологических наук, старший преподаватель кафедры английского языка для профессиональной коммуникации, Мордовский государственный университет им. Н.П. Огарева (Саранск, Российская Федерация)
Irina A. ANASHKINA
e-mail: Iraida952@gmail.com
Doctor of Philology, Professor, Chair of English Language for Professional Communication, Ogarev Mordovia State University (Saransk, Russian Federation)
Inna I. KONKOVA
e-mail: mirna13@mail.ru
Cand. Sc. (Philology), Senior Lecturer, Chair of English Language for Professional Communication, Ogarev Mordovia State University (Saransk, Russian Federation)
Финансирование. Исследование не имело спонсорской поддержки.
Конфликт интересов. Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Вклад авторов равноценен.
Просьба ссылаться на эту статью в русскоязычных источниках следующим образом:
Alekseyev E.G. Legal translation as a type of special translation / E.G. Alekseyev, I.A. Anashkina, I.I. Konkova // Вестник ПНИПУ. Проблемы языкознания и педагогики. - 2022. - № 3. - С. 31-41.
Please cite this article in English as:
Alekseyev E.G., Anashkina I.A., Konkova I.I. Legal translation as a type of special translation. PNRPU Linguistics and Pedagogy Bulletin, 2022, no. 3, pp. 31-41 (In Russian).
