CC BY
25INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 1 ISSUE 6 UIF-2022: 8.2 | ISSN: 2181-3337
SYMMETRICAL AND ASYMMETRICAL RELATIONS IN LINGUISTICS: ANALYSIS
ON ENGLISH PREDICATES Dilshoda Mirzayeva Ikromjonovna
Fergana State University, Head of English Department, Phd Usmanova Maftuna Solijonovna
Fergana State University, 2nd year Master's degree student Linguistics (English) major
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7165471
Abstract. This article is devoted to the comparative study of the asymmetrical and asymmetrical relations in linguistics. Firstly, the universal terms symmetry and asymmetry were defined linguistically and their peculiarities of these two relations were investigated. Basically, we tried analyze symmetrical and asymmetrical relations of predicates in the English language.
Keywords: symmetry, asymmetry, predicate, asymmetrical relationship, symmetrical relationship, linguistic analysis.
СИММЕТРИЧНЫЕ И АСИММЕТРИЧНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ В ЛИНГВИСТИКЕ: АНАЛИЗ НА АНГЛИЙСКИХ ПРЕДИКАТАХ
Аннотация. Данная статья посвящена сравнительному изучению асимметричных и асимметричных отношений в языкознании. Во-первых, были лингвистически определены универсальные термины симметрия и асимметрия и исследованы их особенности этих двух отношений. В основном мы попытались проанализировать симметричные и асимметричные отношения сказуемых в английском языке.
Ключевые слова: симметрия, асимметрия, сказуемое, асимметричное отношение, симметричное отношение, лингвистический анализ.
INTRODUCTION
Our main empirical finding concerns the role of language, or, more specifically, grammar, in effecting and maintaining the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric cognitive structures. Specifically, whereas symmetric structures devoid of thematic-role assignment more commonly occur in a non-grammatical and usually also non-verbal medium, asymmetric structures involving thematic-role assignment are more likely to be associated with a grammatical medium.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Its point of departure is an abstract distinction between two kinds of cognitive structures: symmetric and asymmetric. A cognitive structure of the form XY is symmetric if X is to Y as Y is to X with respect to all relevant features. Conversely, XY is asymmetric if there is one or more relevant features applying differentially to X and Y, thereby effecting an ordering, ranking, or imbalance between X and Y.
A crucial characteristic of the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric structures is its privative nature. Asymmetric structures are derived from symmetric ones by adding features that effect the asymmetry. Thus, symmetric structures are architectonically prior to asymmetric ones; they provide the foundations on which asymmetric structures are constructed.
As we shall demonstrate below, the processes by which asymmetric structures are built on top of symmetric ones are associated with the introduction of language. Although, as noted above, thematic-role assignment is part of general conceptual structure, it is through the medium of grammar that it assumes its role as a central feature underlying asymmetric cognitive
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 1 ISSUE 6 UIF-2022: 8.2 | ISSN: 2181-3337
structures, thereby providing the basis for the distinction between non-grammatical and grammatical levels of cognition.
The distinction between symmetry and asymmetry in the domain of compositional semantics is not categorical but rather gradated. Thematic-role assignment is not something that is either present or absent; instead, it can be present to various degrees, depending on a wide variety of factors, both grammatical and extra-linguistic. In order to capture this effect, we posit two distinct levels, or tiers, of cognition: non-grammatical cognition, more commonly associated with symmetric structures, and grammatical cognition more conducive to asymmetric structures. These two levels of cognition are not on a par; rather, grammatical cognition is derived from non-grammatical cognition by the introduction of thematic-role assignment, which has the effect of transforming symmetric structures into asymmetric ones.
RESULTS
Symmetry helps one make systematic inference about relations in the world and is a fundamental property of natural language (Gleitman, Senghas, Flaherty, Coppola, & Goldin-Meadow, 2019). A symmetrical predicate describes a reciprocal relation and collective participation between entities. For instance, knowing John met Mark one can systematically infer that Mark met John, and vice versa. Here meet is perceived as symmetrical, because a meeting is implicitly reciprocal and occurring collectively with both participants. Conversely, Gab kissed Anna does not imply that Anna kissed Gab. Here kiss is perceived as asymmetrical. However, symmetry inference concerns beyond a predicate. In particular, context can make kiss symmetrical, e.g., Anna and Gab kissed simultaneously implies that Anna kissed Gab and Gab kissed Anna.
We present a framework for automated inference of verb symmetry in naturalistic sentences. Empirical studies from psycholinguistics have taken two main approaches to sentence-level symmetry:
1) a feature-based approach (Gleitman, Gleitman, Miller, & Ostrin, 1996); 2) a contextbased approach (Tversky & Gati, 1978).
Gleitman and colleagues, after obtaining predicate-level symmetry ratings, had participants assess the degree of discrepancy in meaning between a sentence and its reversed counterpart (where the positions of the entities are switched). The logic behind this approach to symmetry inference can be demonstrated in the pair of sentences, Gab kissed Anna and Anna kissed Gab, which do not have the same meaning. The difference score for the pair would be high, rendering kiss asymmetrical.
Symmetrical relationship is made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis; showing symmetry. While asymmetrical relation means having parts or aspects that are not equal or equivalent; unequal. When we concern about symmetrical and asymmetrical relations of a language, it will be focused on the ways of relations of the linguistic units, whether they can be replaced, equal or unequal. In this article, we are going to analyze symmetrical and asymmetrical relations of predicates in English language.
"Symmetrical predicates" have distinctive linguistic properties in many languages. But the concept of "symmetry" merits closer examination, especially in the light of the controversial claim by the psychologist Amos Tversky [1] that the concept 'similar', a standard example of a symmetrical predicate, is in fact not symmetrical. Tversky's evidence includes the fact that experimental subjects generally rate (1a) as holding to a higher degree than (1b).
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 1 ISSUE 6 UIF-2022: 8.2 | ISSN: 2181-3337
(1) a. North Korea is similar to Red China.
b. Red China is similar to North Korea.
Lila Gleitman and colleagues argue in an interesting paper [2] that 'similar' is symmetrical, and that the difference in judgments reflects the independent contribution of figure-ground differences encoded in the syntax. They argue in support of a robust linguistic distinction between symmetrical and "asymmetrical" predicates. Gleitman et al use a semantic paraphrase test as a central property in characterizing linguistically symmetrical predicates in English: does the intransitive version of a given predicate have a meaning close to the meaning of an overt reciprocal with the corresponding transitive version? This test is illustrated in (2) and (3) below, where (2a) and (2b), with symmetrical meet, are close in meaning, but (3a) and (3b), with the "asymmetrical" drown, are not.
(2) a. John and Bill meet.
b. John and Bill meet each other.
(3) a. John and Bill drown.
b. John and Bill drown each other.
Gleitman et al's paper analyzes symmetrical and what I will call "quasi-symmetrical" or "sometimes-symmetrical" predicates in English, including verbs (meet, kiss), and adjectives (similar), to which I will add nouns (sibling, brother). Their paper addresses and solves the mysteries raised by Tversky's work concerning the apparent non-symmetrical behavior of symmetrical predicates like similar.
DISCUSSION
The component parts of a linguistic structure are related to one another; for example, the subject is related to the verb in a sentence structure. Syntactic structures are characterized by asymmetric relations between the parts, in almost all respects. For instance, the various relations between a verb and its subject are asymmetric because the subject is higher in the structure than the verb, and also because the verb takes the subject as its argument. Most relations in a sentence are asymmetric, but there are some relations which appear not to be asymmetric. One potential example of symmetry in syntax might be conjunction: in the conjunction "John and Mary", each item is conjoined to the other, which is a symmetric relation. If we now return to the asymmetries in a syntactic structure, those between for example a verb and subject, or verb and object, or modifier and modified element, we might note that these asymmetries do not appear to combine in any significant way with the symmetries of poetic form. Here apparently there is little to say about any aesthetic 'contradiction' between the asymmetry of language and the symmetry of form. There are two reasons for this.
The first is that some kinds of poetic form, such as the kind of rhyme we see in Dryden's text, hold between any two words and there is neither a requirement nor prohibition on the two words being linguistically related: for example, it seems that rules for rhyme never stipulate that two words must be in the same sentence. The second reason is that other kinds of poetic form, such as lexical and syntactic parallelism, actually work by discouraging hierarchical asymmetry.
CONCLUSIONS
We present to our knowledge the first formal framework for modelling sentence-level predicate symmetry and demonstrate that automated inference of verb symmetry is possible in natural context. Contributing the symmetry inference sentence dataset, we show how existing approaches to symmetry, based on linguistic features and contextualization, are by themselves
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 1 ISSUE 6 UIF-2022: 8.2 | ISSN: 2181-3337
insufficient to explain sentence level symmetry judgment, but a hybrid approach improves
systematic symmetry inference in state of-the-art language models.
REFERENCES
1. Tversky A. Features of similarity // Psychological Review, 1977. 84. P. 327 352.
2. Gleitman L.R., Gleitman H., Miller C., Ostrin R. Similar, and similar concepts // Cognition, 1996. 58. P. 321-376.
3. Nasriddinovna, S. Z. (2022, April). CLASSIFICATION OF SYNTACTIC RELATIONS IN COMPOUND SENTENCES. In International Conference on Research Identity, Value and Ethics (pp. 121-123).
4. Nasriddinovna, S. Z. ional Study of Syntactical Relations o pound Sentences in Uzbek Linguistics.
5. Soxibovna, M. G. (2022). Important features of linguocultureme in study of national and cultural words. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE & INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH ISSN: 2277-3630 Impact factor: 7.429, 77(08), 9-13.
6. Юсупова, С. А. (2022, September). УЗБЕК ТИЛИ ТИПОЛОГИЯСИДА ^УРМАТ КАТЕГОРИЯСИ. In INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE" THE TIME OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS" (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 10-14).
7. Юсупова, С. А. (2022, September). УЗБЕК ТИЛИДА ХУРМАТ ИФОДАЛАШНИНГ ЛИНГВОКУЛЬТУРОЛОГИК ХУСУСИЯТЛАРИ. In INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE" INNOVATIVE TRENDS IN SCIENCE, PRACTICE AND EDUCATION" (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 10-14).
8. Yusupova, S. (2022). ИЖТИМОИЙ ГУРУХ,ЛАРДА ХУРМАТ КАТЕГОРИЯСИ ИФОДАЛАШ. Science and innovation, 1(B5), 350-352.
9. Sultonova, M. (2022). INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING TO FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS. Galaxy International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10(3), 659-662.
10. Yunusovna, S. M. (2022). Implementing multiple strategies to foster reading comprehension in teaching English. Journal of Pedagogical Inventions and Practices, 5, 147-149.
11. Mirzayeva, D. (2021). PROVERBS AND SAYINGS AS A PRODUCT OF THE NATION'S COGNITIVE THINKING. In Multidiscipline Proceedings of Digital Fashion Conference (Vol. 1, No. 2).
12. Мирзаева, Д. И. (2017). АНАЛИЗ ДИСКУРСА УЧЕНИЯ И ИЗУЧЕНИЯ. Актуальные научные исследования в современном мире, (4-2), 73-75.
13. Mirzayeva, D. (2019). THE CONCEPT OF" FRIENDSHIP" IN UZBEK AND ENGLISH LINGUISTIC CULTURE. Мировая наука, (11), 29-32.
14. Mirzaeva, D. I. (2020). THE ROLE OF PAREMIOLOGY IN THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM. Scientific Bulletin of Namangan State University, 2(6), 245-251.
15. Farxod-qizi, V. D., & Dilshoda, M. (2022). INGLIZ VA O'ZBEK TILLARIDAGI MAQOLLARDA" OVQAT" SEMASINING LINGVOKULTUROLOGIK TADQIQI. Gospodarka i Innowacje., 24, 662-664.
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 1 ISSUE 6 UIF-2022: 8.2 | ISSN: 2181-3337
16. Mirzayeva, D. (2019). PROVERB AS A KIND OF PAREMIOLOGICAL FUND AND AS AN OBJECT OF LINGUISTIC AND METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Мировая наука, (11), 33-36.
17. Mirzaeva, D. (2021). THE ROLE OF PAREMIA IN THE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE. Журнал иностранных языков и лингвистики, 2(3).
18. Mirzayeva, D. (2021). PROVERBS AND SAYINGS AS A PRODUCT OF THE NATION'S COGNITIVE THINKING. In Multidiscipline Proceedings of Digital Fashion Conference (Vol. 1, No. 2). Ismoilova, S., & Xalilova, G. (2022). RESEARCH ON THE ISSUE OF QUESTIONS IN LINGUISTICS. Development and innovations in science, 1(1), 17-19.
