CC BY
5D. Suleimanova
SOME PROBLEMS TREATED FORM LINGUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL POINTS OF VIEW (ON THE BASIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE)
Статья выполнена при поддержке гранта РГНФ 14-14-00497
Keywords: semantic, lingual, psychological, activity, passivity, the semantic type of a predicate, the semantic structure, semantic features, an intensification axis, a poetic text, verbs "to love", "to be", "to have", "to possess", principles of "having" and "being", etc.
Abstract: The research reveals the problems on the basis of the English language which admit two interpretations: lingual / semantic and psychological. Both interpretations are presented in the article. Among the problems which are discussed here are: contradiction between lingual activity/passivity and psychological activity/passivity and the lack of forms of expression of the latter in English; the reasons of possible usage of some verbs which are considered usually as "statal" in the Continuous form.
Ключевые слова: семантический, лингвистический.психологический,активность, пассивность,семантический тип предиката,семантическая структура, семантические признаки, ось интенсификации,поэтический текст, глаголы «любить», «быть», иметь», «обладать», принципы «обладания» и «бытия» и др.
Аннотация: Данное исследование раскрывает проблемы на базе английского языка, которые допускают двойную интерпретацию: лингвистическую / семантическую и психологическую. В статье представлены обе интерпретации. Среди обсуждаемых здесь проблем: несоответствие лингвистической активности / пассивности и психологической активности / пассивности и отсутсвие форм выражения последних в английском языке; причины возможности употребления некоторых «статальных» глаголов в прогрессивной форме.
There are certain problems in the English language which may be viewed from different points, for example from semantic or just lingual points on the one hand and from psychological point on the other hand. We shall touch upon some of these problems here.
The first problem is the treatment of notions "activity" and "passivity".
It is well known that the forms of the active and passive voice are the following: smb makes sth; sth is made by smb. The subject and the object in these constructions may be both animate and inanimate. Such kind of activity and passivity expressed in certain grammatical forms we will call here "lingual activity and passivity". Lingual passivity expressed in the form be + Ved (V is the verb) means that the object of the action is "suffering". He/it undergoes some action fulfilled by the Doer. If there is no such "suffering" then we have (lingual) activity.
But if we try to consider the problem of activity and passivity from psychological point of view, especially based on the works of the famous psychologist Erich Fromm, we could come to the conclusion that human passivity not always presupposes "suffering some immediate action performed by somebody or something".
For example a person working at the conveyor is not always active. He might as well be a passive subject. He can fulfill his duty not even thinking about that, fulfilling them automatically thinking at same time about something very personal (something different from his work). Or a child playing the piano only because his mother asked / made him do that is also passive for he is not "here and now" doing consciously his music exercises. He may think at that particular moment about his friends playing football outside, and in his mind he is with them "playing football". Though both subjects in the above mentioned examples are passive the predicates in the sentences of such kind are usually used in the active form: He works /is working. He plays /is playing the piano. Thus we have lingual activity here but psychological passivity at the same time (for it is somebody or something that made these people fulfill their duties).
In accord with the above mentioned we consider it necessary to differentiate the notions: lingual activity / passivity, on the one hand; and psychological activity / passivity, on the other hand. As the first pair was already discussed, let us try to analyze the second pair of notions.
nPOGACMU CO tip CMCHHOfO OCPn3<>OnHHn
By the term psychological activity we call an action performed by the subject consciously and at will (of his own accord). The last two components: consciousness and willingness - are obligatory for this notion. Accordingly, the action performed by the subject unconsciously and not of his own accord we shall call psychological passivity.
Coming back to the above mentioned examples we can say that if a person works at the conveyor or plays the piano at will and consciously and he is interested both in the process and in its results - only then we may call him an active subject. According to E. Fromm's point of view "to be active" means to grow, fill deep interest, long for sth, to give, to become new, to develop. He called psychological activity a productive way of living while the psychological passivity - a nonproductive, destructive way of living.
Taking all this into consideration we may say that in English as well as in some other languages there are no special grammatical forms expressing psychological activity and passivity. In order to render these notions to the full extent we could suggest the following expressions: smb does / makes sth consciously /willingly (for psychological activity) ; smb is made to do sth, smb does /makes sth under the influence of smb / sth (for psychological passivity). But these are only lexical means of expressing the notions.
It is not so important to indicate who or what exactly made a person fulfill some action. And it is not always explicitly expressed. These may be some people or inner mental programs (belief), fear, anxiety or some other psychological factors.
The construction: to have sth done does not render the idea of psychological activity / passivity either. A person may have something done either at will or being asked / persuaded / made to have it done. For example I can have my hair cut either at my will or because my mother made me do that. This construction does not give any difference between psychological activity and passivity.
The constructions like: The door opened. Or The books are selling well - are not discussed here because we deal with psychology which means that the focus of our interest is mostly on human beings. And we are not discussing the activity or passivity of the lifeless things.
Thus we come to the conclusion that activity as well as passivity may be viewed from two different points: lingual and psychological. The two points differ from each other. Lingual activity may not always coincide with psychological activity (it may turn to be psychological passivity) as well as lingual passivity does not always coincide with psychological passivity.
It appears that probably a language can reveal a somewhat erroneous idea of modern people concerning activity and passivity which was also underlined by E. Fromm. The author mentioned that nowadays people understand activity as a mere action of a human being, use of energy leading to the change of things around [2]. But if we give these notions deeper consideration we will see that the inherent nature of the activity and passivity is different.
Moreover, the author also mentions about two types of activity: inner and outer (external). This idea is also maintained by some other modern psychologists. E. Fromm gives his own example of inner activity [2]: a person sitting still, meditating and feeling nothing except his total unity with the world. For the external observer he will look passive but from E. Fromm's point of view such state of meditation is the highest form of human activity. This is the activity of our soul (psyche) which is possible only if the soul feels inner freedom and independence.
Both inner and external forms of activity do not find their own grammatical forms of expression in English either.
The second problem which could be treated form semantic and psychological points of view is the possible usage of the verb "love" in the Continuous form.
Let us discuss this problem from a semantic point of view first.
It is well known that the verb "love" belongs to the class of statal (stative) verbs which are not used in the Continuous (Progressive) form in English. But there are some cases when some of
the statal verbs can be and are used in this grammatical form. It means that there exist some reasons which help to remove the restriction. In our dissertation [5] we stated that one of such reasons may be a poetic text in which certain semantic transformations of the statal verbs are possible. This also holds true for the verb 'love". Here is the abstract from the poem "The Crocuses" (F. Harper) [3]:
And their loved and white haired mother Smiled sweetly 'neath the touch, When she knew her faithful children Were loving her so much.
The predicate "love" belongs to the group of predicates (love, hate, etc.) of the semantic type called "connection / relation" (see [4]). In our work [5] for the semantic interpretation we use such terms as "(application of) force", "location (on the time axis)" and "phasal existence of the denotate" in order to define certain semantic features in the structure of the predicate, the whole combination of which being present in the semantic structure allows the predicate to be used in the Continuous form easily without any restrictions. For the whole combination of these features coincides with the meaning of progressiveness. Accordingly, the absence of at least one of these features imposes a restriction upon a predicate to be used in the progressive form [5].
Let us consider the predicate "love" in a more detailed way. The denotate of the predicate of "relation" type presents a relation between the subject and the object, primary with regard to actions and processes, in which it may appear. Thus, in the example: Jane loved her mother, so she did not tell her anything about the car accident so as not to trouble her. - the feeling (love) which connects the subject (Jane) with the object (her mother) predetermines the action (did not tell).
Such kind of relation is always abstracted from the time axis for what is really stated is the relation (i.e. feeling) existing as a fact. Thus we may say that the semantic features: "location (of the denotate) on the time axis" and "phasal existence of the denotate" are absent in the structure of this predicate.
Still a feeling (love) can not only exist but it can also intensify. When we deal with intensification the denotate of the predicate may be conceptualized as having changes in its phases. The abstract nature of the denotate does not imply its changes on the time axis. But the changing of the denotate may be conceptualized on an additional axis which we call the intensification axis (Iaxis). In contrast to the time axis which is graphically placed horizontally, the I-axis may be placed vertically, which indicates the intensification of the feature.
The denotate of the predicate may be conceptualized as being located on the intensification axis with its phases coinciding with the points of this axis (i1, i2, i3, i4 ....). Thus in the structure of the predicate "love" may appear such semantic features as "location on the axis (of intensification)" and "phasal existence of the denotate".
The intensification axis correlates with the time axis anyway for the time being a universal form of existence of the matter reveals itself in every sphere. The correlation of the two axes implies that the intensification of some emotional feeling happens within some time but it is impossible to indicate the definite time period when it happens. Thus we cannot say:*/ love/hate her at 7 o'clock/ from 5 till 10 p.m.
The changing (development) in phases of the denotate of the predicate "love" on the Iaxis is possible due to the semantic feature of "application of force" which is inherent in all the predicates of the "relation" type (see [5; 71-75], [4]).
Thus, we underline that while depicting the feeling connecting the subject with the object, reconsideration (new conceptualization) of it is quite possible which happens especially in poetic texts. In such conditions a feeling may be considered not only as existing but also as intensifying.
HPOGACMU COG PCM CHHOfO OCPn300nHHft
In this case, the denotate of a predicate acquires new characteristics. While the semantic feature "application of force" is preserved, the denotate is conceptualized as developing on the I-axis (not on the time axis). As a result of all this in the semantic structure of the predicate may appear the semantic features (which are otherwise absent) - "location" (on the I-axis ) and "phasal existence". After such semantic modifications (reinstallation of the absent semantic features) the restriction for being used in the Continuous form for the predicate "love" disappears. But the verb "love" migrates from the semantic type of "relation" into the semantic type of "process" (see [5]) which has no such restrictions and can easily be used in the progressive form.
The second interpretation of the possible usage of the verb "love" in the progressive form is psychological. E. Fromm mentioned that the notion "love" (to love) is interpreted nowadays erroneously as something abstracted from a human being, as something which may come or go, as something static and passive. But in reality love is an activity of a human being. It is not abstracted form a person but it is inherent in him. To love is natural for a human being, which means to reveal his psychic and physical activity, to take active care of the object beloved, of his/ her life and development. The author mentions different types of love but all of them are the activity of a human being. And activity presupposes development.
Probably, due to the erroneous interpretation of love as a passive, abstract and static phenomenon, the verb "to love" was also interpreted as a statal one which contradicts the idea of active development and progressiveness (the meaning of the Continuous form). But a new look upon the notion of "love" as an active and developing phenomenon may allow us reconsider the nature of the verb "to love" , to see its inherent active nature and to refer this verb to the class of actional verbs (not statal) which can be easily used in the Continuous form.
Alongside the verb "love", the same semantic interpretation as was mentioned above can be applied to the verbs "think" and "wonder". These verbs belong to the semantic type of pred i-cates which is called "existential-resultative" (in the construction "N thinks that...") according to the classification elaborated by O.N. Seliverstova [4]. In such construction the verb "think" has triple restriction for being used in the Continuous form.
As it was mentioned above the meaning of the Continuous form is "progressiveness". By the term "progressiveness" we understand certain development of the phases of a denotate in time. That is why we admit that on the semantic level this idea could be rendered by the combination of three semantic features in the semantic structure of a predicate: "location (of the denotate) on the time axis", "phasal existence (of the denotate)" and "application of force", due to which the development in phases is possible. The absence of at least one of these features in the structure of a predicate imposes restrictions upon a predicate to be used in the Continuous form, because in this case there will be no development in time.
The triple restriction of the predicate "think" here can be explained by the absence of all the three semantic features mentioned above in the semantic structure of this type of the predicate. The meaning of this predicate implies the existence of a certain opinion formulated already in N's mind. This contradicts the idea of phasal development of the denotate in time. The existential nature shows that the denotate is abstracted form the time axis. The resultative nature (the formulated opinion) is conceptualized as a dot, which does not imply any phases in the denotate. Moreover this type of a predicate dos not have a semantic feature called "application of force", which cannot imply any development in phases even if they were present. (see [5]).
However the existence of the formulated opinion in N's mind presupposes a prior stage at which the act of formulation of this opinion took place. It means that there was a certain mental activity in N's mind the result of which became the opinion. The focus of attention here is on the second stage (existence of the opinion), but not on the first stage (mental activity).
In certain conditions, for example in a highly informative poetic text there may happen reconsideration (new conceptualization) of the denoted situation. The focus of our attention may
transform from the second stage onto the first one (the mental activity). In this case certain semantic transformations take place in the structure of the predicate.
Mental activity implies a change of mental phases during a certain period of time. Thus there appear such semantic features in the semantic structure of the predicate "think" like "location (on the time axis)" and "phasal existence (of the denotate)". The semantic feature "application of force" also appears in the structure for we can use such predicate in the construction "the more...the more..." (The more John thought about it, the more uncertain he became.). There also appears such semantic feature as "control", for we can use such a predicate in imperative constructions like: Think about it carefully! Don't think about it!
All these semantic features usually are absent in the semantic structure of the predicate of "existen-tial-resultative" type, when the accent falls only onto the result (the formulated opinion). Still, when the accent transform on to the stage of mental activity (which is prior to the formulated opinion), then all the mentioned semantic features clearly appear in the semantic structure of the predicate and transform this structure. When all these features appear, it helps the predicate "think" to remove the restriction for being used in the Continuous form. But the verb 'to think" migrates then from the type of a predicate called "existential-resultative' to the type called "action" [5].
The predicate "wonder" according to its semantic structure also belongs to the type called "existen-tial-resultative". Its denotate reveals the existence of a certain question formulated in the mind of the subject. (/ wonder what we will have for dinner today). This predicate also has a triple restriction for being used in the Continuous form. The semantic structure of this predicate consists of one stage - the existence of a question which is conceptualized as a dot abstracted from the time axis.
However if the context reveals some information about a certain reflection of the subject aiming at answering the question formulated in his mind, then in the semantics of the predicate the accent may transform onto this new stage (reflection/consideration), which represents a certain mental activity.
Again we have to underline that a mental activity represents a change in mental phases under the influence of some efforts performed by the subject. Such mental activity is connected with a certain time period within which it takes place. In such a case the predicate "wonder" can be used with phrases like: the whole evening, at that moment, more and more. It indicates that in the semantic structure of this predicate there appear the three necessary semantic features (mentioned above). But the feature "control" is absent in this case which is proved by the restriction for this predicate to be in the imperative constructions. (*Wonder what we will have for dinner today!).
Alongside such transformations in the semantic structure of the predicate, the predicate "wonder" migrates from the semantic type called "existential-resultative' to the type called "process" [5].
Such semantic transformations are also possible for some other verbs of the statal class in certain conditions which admit reconsideration (new conceptualization) of the denoted situation.
As our research is based on the poetic texts we may state here that in the highly informative poetic contexts with a high emotional potential such new conceptualization is quite possible, which in its turn gives birth to certain semantic transformations in the structure of some verbs.
The double (semantic and psychological) interpretation can be applied to the verbs: "to be", "to have", "to possess". For such notions as "having" and "being" can also be treated from two points which may explain the possible usage or non-usage of these verbs in the Continuous form.
Applying a semantic interpretation, we admit that all the three verbs should be referred to the semantic type of predicates which is called "presence in space" according to the classification elaborated by professor O.N. Seliverstova [4]. (The term "space" is used in a very broad sense here). The predicates of this type usually can not be used in the Continuous form [5]. (The verb "to be" can also refer to some other semantic types like: "qualities" or "states" which also have certain restrictions.)
However in some cases the use of the Continuous form with some of these predicates is possible: Jane is being clever today. It means that there might be something which helps the predicate to remove the restrictions. This problem may be treated on pure semantic basis. As it was
прослсмы современного осрпзоопння
mentioned before certain conceptualization may cause semantic transformations in the structure of the predicates which may help the predicates to remove the restrictions.
The same problem may be viewed from psychological point as well. While reading E. Fromm's book [1] we came to the conclusion that "having" and "being" are not only two different notions but they are absolutely opposite each other. But here we have to answer the question: Which of the two notions agrees with the idea of progressiveness / development (which is the inherent meaning of the Continuous form)?
As the meaning of "progressiveness" implies phasal development of the denotate in time, in the sphere of semantics the types of the predicates which agree with this meaning are: "action" and "process" [5]. Switching onto psychological interpretation we could say that development in time agrees with the idea of an activity (action). According to E. Fromm's point of view "being" means an activity of a human being which is focused on the development of one's life. "Being" always means activity, changing, development [1], but not a state. (The idea of a state disagrees with the idea of progressiveness).
On the other hand "having" presupposes a certain state - a state of connection (relation) between the subject (who is having) and the object. The idea of using the object by the subject is not implied in the semantics of the verbs "to have" and "to possess". What is really implied is that the object belongs to the subject. The relation between them could be called "possession / belonging". There is not any idea of activity or development in the semantics of the verbs "to have" and "to possess".
Their semantic nature is static, not dynamic. While the semantic nature of the verb "to be" is active and dynamic, which agrees with the meaning of progressiveness. Now it becomes quite clear why the verb "to be" is sometimes used in the Continuous form, while the verbs "to have" and "to possess" usually are not. (He possesses a car. She has a pen.)
Still, sometimes we may find such sentences as: She is having lunch now. They are having a good time here. In such examples the verb "to have" does not reveal the semantics of a certain connection / relation between the subject and the object (which is static), but it reveals the idea of an activity fulfilled by the subject. In this case we may say that the principle of "having" is substituted by the principle of "being", active and dynamic. It helps the verb "have" to remove the restriction to be used in the Continuous form.
The question arises then: why the verb "to be" is sometimes used as a statal verb?
The answer to it may be that the verb "to be" in such cases presupposes some static phenomenon. For example it may mean some status of a person, place, state of mood or his quality, etc. There is no idea of activity, development, "being" in its full sense (as it was stated here basing on E. Fromm's point of view). When the verb "to be" is used in its initial meaning of active, developing "being" then it can be used in the Continuous form.
Such are some considerations concerning certain problems in the English language which admit both lingual / semantic and psychological interpretations. We are sure that some other problems which were not discussed here also can admit both interpretations, which may give food for further consideration and research.
References
1. Erich Fromm. Imetj ili bytj. [trans. from English / To have or to be?]. [Text]. M.: Publishing house "AST", 2000.
2. Erich Fromm. Iskusstvo lubit [trans. from English /The Art of Loving]. [Text]. M.:AST:AST MOSKWA, 2009. 223 p.
3. F.E. W. Harper Poems. URL : http://www.gutenbera.org/cache/epub/679/pa679.html (accessed October 30,2014)
4. O.N. Seliverstova. Semanticheskie tipy predikatov v angliyskom yazike [Text] // Semanticheskie tipy predikatov. М.: Nauka, 1982. P. 86-216.
5. D.M. Suleimanova. Semanticheskaya model snyatiya ogranicheniy na upotrebleniye progressivnogo razryada (na materiale angliyskikh glagolov statalnogo kharaktera). [Text]. Dissert-ya na soisk. uchen. stepeni kandid. phylolog. nauk. Ufa, 2004.
