CC BY
22
Linguistics Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3-4 (2017)
3 < BAiTWEST >
ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online)
Linguistics Лингвистика
UDC 81'42 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/AJH-17-3.4-9-14
H. Zh. Tovmasyan 1
1 Yerevan Brusov State University of Languages and Social Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia
TEXT COHESION VIA THE PRESUPPOSITION BASE REALIZED THROUGH SYNONYMY OF LEXICAL UNITS
Abstract
Objective: to study text cohesion and discourse coherence via the presupposition base of the speaking individual, to focus on text cohesion through the synonymy of lexical units.
Methods: meaning analysis, discourse analysis, text structure exploration, contextual analysis, selection and sampling, comparison and generalization.
Results: based on the semantic-structural analysis of the text and discourse and the outlined research methods, the mechanisms of text cohesion and discourse cohesion are revealed; the article brings an in-depth analysis of the notion of the presuppositions base, its structure and mechanisms of structuring; it is claimed that depending on the content of the presupposition base, that is, its phenomenological and linguistic aspects, the speaking individual makes a choice from among the available linguistic cognitive structures of the presupposition base to actualize the discourse information and shape a cohesive text; synonyms serve as a linguistic cognitive structure used to give a linguistic shape to the discourse pertinent presuppositions and serve as text anaphora.
Scientific novelty: for the first time based on the presented methods the innovative comprehensive research is undertaken to the study of text cohesion and discourse coherence through the presupposition base which is a new word in linguistics.
Practical significance: the main results and conclusions ofthe paper can be used in research and teaching activities, specifically in theoretical and practical courses addressing text and discourse structure, formation and semantics.
Keywords: presupposition base, presupposition, speaking individual, synonymy, text cohesion, discourse coherence, anaphora.
introduction
Over the past few decades, with the headway of pragmatics, psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics and ethnolinguistics there have appeared such notions as the presupposition, frame, stereotype, precedent phenomenon, cognitive structure, and many others which disclose the actual functioning ofhuman thinking activity and its linguistic output — text — via patterned background knowledge. The main aim of the article is to elucidate a serviceable framework of how text cohesion is achieved by means of synonym chains which in fact act as staples
of parts of the polypredicative unit or text. As such synonyms serve as anaphora of parts of the polypredicative unit or the text and discourse entities. The discourse referent (s) to which repeated synonyms refer to are in fact discourse presuppositions. Such kind of text-discourse anaphora via synonym chains of the text secure discourse coherence and text cohesion. Besides, it also secures the actualization of the macropresupposition of the text, that is, the general topic of the text, since it is actually а co-reference of its parts both on the surface level via synonyms and deep level via synonym-presupposition
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3-4(2017)
< IASTWEST >
Linguistics
anaphora. A central part in this respect is allotted to the notions of frame and stereotype as they are in fact presuppositional structures, that is, units of the presupposition base of the speaking individual. In the present paper I aim to work out a framework of how the presupposition base of the speaking individual secures discourse coherence and text cohesion via the synonyms that appear in its surface structure giving insight of how a text is structured in two planes — discourse and text.
RESEARCH RESULTS
I find it timely to define the notion of the speaking individual, proceeding from the scientific data [1; 2]. It is noteworthy that initially the term linguistic individual appeared in research literature before it was introduced into the sphere of scientific terminology by Yu. Karaulov [1]. Further, this idea was developed in the work of B. Johnstone [2]. Both scholars view the linguistic individual as a human being who is endowed with the potential of learning a language and who masters it in the process of his/her socialization. Thus, in my understanding the linguistic individual is in fact the language speaker. I term it the speaking individual as the speech counterpart of the language invariant — linguistic individual.
As for presupposition base (notion and term proposed by me) (PB henceforth) it is the bulk of knowledge and ideas which are first reflected and then shaped as such in a human being's consciousness as a result of the cognitive, speculative process which starts at his/her birth and develops throughout his/her life.
The notion of the PB takes a supreme importance and becomes a core concept in this paper as frames and stereotypes are actually units of it and they may "appear" on the surface structure of the text via synonyms. Another key characteristic of the frame and the stereotype is that due to the content of their semantic structure very often they require equivalent semes to embody their meaning in the text. One type of reflection of the content of their semantic structure via equivalent semes in the text is anaphoric synonym chains.
To start with, text cohesion via synonyms testifies a quite developed linguistic competence of the speaking individual.
It is noteworthy that in the text structuring process the speaking individual relies on his/her PB in at least two ways. First, he/she makes up a coherent discourse with the help of the phenomenological, cognitive structures of his/her PB, thus creating a solid informational — presuppositional — system which maximally
reflects the given communicative setting. Then he/she reflects this mental, presuppositional structure, otherwise discourse, in the text via the linguistic cognitive structures of his/her PB which in this particular case is actualized via synonym anaphora and cohesion.
As delineated previously, the use of synonyms to create the surface structure of the text and secure its coherence and cohesion stands for a sophisticated linguistic, cognitive component of the speaking individual's PB.
Data-driven analysis testifies that synonymy plays a very interesting role in the issue of sameness of meaning. It reveals how a human being reflects the world in his/her consciousness, what stages the cognition process passes through when it reflects a certain phenomenon, and which is the most important member in the synonym chain which was developed as an outcome of cognitive reflection.
Obviously, the structure of the synonym range displays the general perception of a certain concept in the given lingvo-culture. What adds to the general confusion about synonym chain structure is the fact that it is almost impossible to ascertain up to the end which is the most acceptable synonym of the chain — the kernel/essential one or the peripheral ones. This issue has merited the attention ofJohn Lyons who claims a rather extreme view on synonymy, namely that "all cases of synonymy could be excluded from vocabulary and the meaning of the rest of lexical entities would remain untouched" [3, P. 476].
I advocate the view that the existence of synonymy in the word-stock of any language is attributed to cognition. It reflects the stages of reflection of the given entity in human consciousness, the formulation of the stages of its mental image. In other words, the more lexical items there exist in a language to name the given entity, the more sophisticated is its mental, cognitive image. As soon as a cognitive, mental image is reflected in human consciousness, it turns into frame knowledge on a specific concept. More specifically, it contains a group of presuppositions on a certain phenomenon by way of phenomenological and linguistic cognitive structures. To illustrate the above-said consider the case of names of vehicles in English and Lappish. In English there is a variety of words naming types of vehicles, while in Lappish they almost do not exist. It is attributed to the cognition of that phenomenon in the given lingvo-culture and the mental picture of that part of the world. On top of that, it should be accentuated that, broadly speaking the abundance of synonyms,
Linguistics
< BAiTWEST >
SdB*ELMTTS
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3-4 (2017)
which are in fact presuppositions on a certain concept, have intricate paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, which stands for the systematization of that part of cognitive knowledge — presuppositions. Thus, the more sophisticated is the cognitive, mental image of an entity in human consciousness, the richer is the PB of the speaking individual, which allows him/her to display appropriate speech activity in diverse communicative situations, that is, structure a text.
As delineated previously, the text whose cohesion is achieved through synonyms is based on frame semantics. More specifically, it relies on the phenomenological, cognitive component of the PB. Thus, once an entity is reflected in human consciousness and acquires the status of a concept, it turns into a certain collective, informative, presuppositional unit. The collective, presuppositional unit is the frame/stereotype that has its semantic kernel - macropresupposition - the most neutral member of the synonym chain, and other semantic units - presuppositions - allocated in its slots, whose relation with the kernel is that of semantic sameness of various degrees. In fact, when the speaking individual uses a certain word in the given text and then uses a synonym of that word in another part of that text, he/ she actually activates the frame/stereotype of the entity in question in his/ her consciousness, positioning them in the text in such a way as to shape a coherent unit both on discourse and text levels. More specifically, in a text generation process the speaking individual employs both the phenomeno-logical and the linguistic cognitive structures of his/her PB which are in fact lingvo-cultural presuppositions on that phenomenon and potential means of actualizing them in language. In the given case the phenomenologi-cal cognitive structures are actualized in the text by way of synonyms.
Most importantly, the use of synonyms in the same microtext or different parts of the same polypredicative unit secures its cohesion by referring to the same presupposition in its discourse. Synonymy is attributed to a word if in a certain text or part of a polypredicative structure another linguistic cognitive structure with equivalent meaning is utilized. The latter serves as an antecedent. Besides, the meaning of an antecedent in a text is known to be a presupposition for its subsequent which is related to it by anaphora.
The analysis below point to and exemplify that text cohesion via semantic/ideographic and stylistic synonyms, as a staple between parts of the text, are rather
rare. On the one hand, it is accounted for by the fact that these units have valency, syntagmatic limitations which is attributed to the language system. Another limitation of synonyms in the function of a staple of parts of a polypredicative unit is stipulated by the relations that appear when a synonym unit refers to a certain part of the polypredicative structure as its antecedent. Obviously, of the great variety of syntactic structures in the language system relations of sameness are utilized only in the case when there are parallel structures which are in the relation of mutual substitution or specification. And on top of that, the third limitation is preconditioned by the PB of the speaking individual. That is, the density and appropriateness of use of synonyms requires a sophisticated linguistic competence and is mostly peculiar to written texts, since it is the only case when the speaking individual in not constrained in time in terms of choice, replacement and arrangement of language units. The conditio sine qua non of real-time functioning of oral speech constrains the speaking individual in terms of choice of language means first to shape coherent discourse and then structure a text. In other words, in oral speech the speaking individual tries to be maximally relevant, maximally adhere to the factors of discourse situation, and thus "... a short word appears instead of a longer one, a more routine word instead of a "scholarly" one, an Anglo-Saxon word instead of a Latin, Greek or Romance word" [3, P. 474].
It is worth to note here that text cohesion via synonymy is a specific way of actual division of the text or a polypredicative unit, i. e. utilizing a synonym the addresser gives the addressee new information about the previously said, delineated, and known. The divergent meanings of synonym-staples of parts of the text help to reveal new, additional aspects of the entity in question. In the local context of the discourse no more than two synonym units are used. Commonly, first appears the neutral, dominant member of the synonym chain, the so-called essential member or the kernel of the frame. To elucidate the above-said consider an example from John Keats's "On the Grasshopper and Cricket": The Poetry of earth is never dead: When all the birds are faint with the hot sun, And hide in cooling trees, a voice will run From hedge to hedge about the new-mown mead; That is the Grasshopper's — he takes the lead In summer luxury, — he has never done With his delights; for when tired out with fun
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3-4(2017)
< iAgTWEST >
SCBJCEUHrTTS
Linguistics
He rests at ease beneath some pleasant weed. The poetry of earth is ceasing never: On a lone winter evening, when the frost Has wrought a silence, from the stove there shrills The Cricket's song, in warmth increasing ever, And seems to one in drowsiness half lost, The Grasshopper's among some grassy hills [4]. The cohesion of the two parts of the sonnet is secured via two synonym expressions whose aim is to add new information about the antecedent whose meaning serves as a presupposition for the subsequent member. Synonym repetition is the linguistic actualization of a coherent discourse, since it secures cohesion of parts of the text via presuppositional anaphora.
In this regard consider an excerpt from Martin Luther King's famous speech "I Have a Dream".
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity [5].
The given part of the text is remarkable as it contains two pairs of non-standard, that is, semantic/ideographic, stylistic synonyms, namely, Emancipation Proclamation and decree on the one hand, and great beacon light of hope and joyous daybreak on the other. Obviously, linguistically the synonym pairs have nothing to do with each other. Nonetheless, they are synonyms, since they have the same referent — presupposition — in the given discourse. The anaphora functioning between the units in question generates coherent discourse and cohesive text. Evidence is adduced for the hypothesis that as in any case of text or part of the text cohesion actualized via synonym anaphora, in this particular case as well synonymy fulfils the same function, that is, gives two pieces of discourse-generated information about the same information (Emancipation Proclamation; the slavery abolition hope of the black people), which serves as a presupposition in the discourse. The second one comes to complement the presupposition of the antecedent. By this it keeps the discourse concept (the Emancipation Proclamation of the black people from slavery and its hope) salient. The semantic/ideographic-stylistic synonyms impart extra expressiveness to the text.
There are cases when synonyms occurring in the text are contextual, more specifically, their synonym status is determined by the context. The latter is attributed to the
cases when by virtue of referring to the same discourse entity — presupposition — they turn into contextual synonyms. Recapitulating, as in any case with synonymy, in the given case as well it fulfills the same function — anaphora of discourse with parts of the text whose ultimate end is to secure discourse coherence and text cohesion. This is the case with the above-cited excerpt from Martin Luther King's famous speech.
Neither of the nominal pairs Emancipation Proclamation and decree, and great beacon light of hope and joyous daybreak is a synonym for each other in English as a system. They are synonyms for each other uniquely in this particular text, since they refer to the same discourse presuppositions, namely, Emancipation Proclamation of black slaves which is a decree at the same time, and the hope they cherish for abolition of slavery.
Results of the analysis show that synonymy, as any other semantic relation, is heavily dependent on the context, while contextual synonymy is determined by "features of the situational context where the given utterance appears" [3, p. 477].
Needless to say that the detection of contextual synonymy is largely dependent on pragmatics, more specifically, on discourse anaphora and revelation of the addresser's aims.
Not infrequently there can appear cases of synonymy based on figurative, connotative meaning, which is perceived only when the addresser's aims are accounted for. In this regard consider an excerpt from a news article deployed at news, web portal izvestia.ru.
Неудивительно, что начались финансовые конвульсии. [...] Ничего не помогло. Судороги сменились комой. [...] Предпочли ужасный конец ужасу без конца. Аргентина отмучилась... [6].
To begin with, the first signs of cohesive text in the given microtext are displayed by the actualization of the frame disease symptoms. The next factor contributing to the cohesion of the text is figurative/connotative synonymy. Nonetheless standing apart and appearing in different parts of the text, figurative/connotative synonyms refer to the same discourse presupposition. By this they achieve the coherence of its underlying concept — topic. The words конвульсии and судороги appear as contextual synonyms here. In its turn the word кома is a context-dependent synonym for the word combination ужасный конец. The contextual synonymy of these units is perceived when the addresser's aims are accounted for. In other words, the pragmatic factor plays a central role
Linguistics
< EAiTWEST >
SdB*ELMTTS
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3-4 (2017)
here. The author purposefully creates synonym ranges to implicitly relate one part of the text with another, at the same time preserving the identity of the evolving topic. It is worth mentioning here that anaphora of the parts of the text through contextual synonyms is achievable only when there is an overtly salient discourse presupposition to which a reference (s) is made.
Accordingly, text cohesion via synonyms on the whole relies on discourse coherence. They are surface structure indices of a coherent discourse, since they implicitly refer to its concept, i. e. its macropresupposition or parts of it, i. e. presuppositions.
Interestingly, members of the synonym paradigm can be actualized both with the distinctive and functional-stylistic, connotative meanings. The actualization base is stipulated by the communicative strategy of the text [7]. The findings of the study reveal that stylistic synonyms, in contrast to semantic/ideographic ones, are more endowed with text cohesion and discourse coherence potential. Besides, there can appear more than two of them in the same microtext. Nevertheless, there do happen cases when text cohesion is achieved through more than two semantic/ideographic synonyms in the function of a staple of parts of the text or that of a polypred-icative unit. To exemplify the above-said consider the afore-coming example.
Взвизгнув, вконец ошалевший Эраст Петрович перемахнул через ограду, метнулся вправо, влево (откуда кэб-то приехал?) и, решив, что все равно, побежал направо [8, P. 121].
Such a manipulation of entities of a synonym range displays how skillfully the addresser can manage the base of the text, i. e. its discourse. On the other hand, it reveals the author's unique rhetorical technique. It is worthy to mention here that the deployment of language units that have the same meaning but are differentiated by the distinctive meaning of degree of intensification in the same microtext, in fact creates the stylistic device known as gradation. In transition from one unit to the other the use of this trope can produce both weakening and strengthening in the degree of intensification [9].
Cohesion of the microtext in the above-cited example is achieved through a range of contextual, semantic/ideographic synonyms which create intensifying gradation. Such a synonym range secures the cohesion of the text by virtue of preserving the discourse presupposition.
The given microtext is a vivid example of how the PB of a speaking individual functions to create a cohesive text: given a certain communicative aim to fulfil the addresser first operates the phenomenological component of his/her PB to shape a coherent discourse, then gives it a linguistic form via the linguistic cognitive structures of his/her PB. The more developed the surface structure of the text, the more sophisticated the linguistic cognitive component of the PB of the speaking individual. Indeed, the same discourse can be linguistically formulated by simplistic language means that lack any expressiveness.
conclusions
Overall, the findings of the study point to the fact that any initiative to create a cohesive text is primarily stipulated by the pragmatic factor, i. e. communicative aims of the addresser. Only on account of the communicative aim the addresser operates the whole communicative potential of his/her PB, both phenomenologically and linguistically. Text cohesion via synonymy is its one special case.
Thus, the cohesion of the text straightforwardly depends on the PB of the speaking individual. In this regard imagine a free, thematic essay writing when, given a certain topic, the author must formulate it in the form of a written essay. There won't be any two people, even belonging to the same culture that would produce the same essay — both on the planes of discourse and test. The divergence would get more vivid if the people, who unfold the theme, belong to different lingvo-cultures. In fact, the divergence is caused by the difference in their PBs which generate different texts. The latter statement does prove that any speech outcome is actually the result of the PB of the speaking individual.
References:
1. Karaulov Yu. N. Russkiy yazyk i yazykovaya lichnosL. - M.: Nauka, - 1987, - 264 p. (in Russ.)
2. Johnstone B. The Linguistic Individual: Self-Expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford: OUP, - 1996, -214 p.
3. Lyons J. Vvedenie v teoreticheskuyu lingvistiku. - M.: Progress. - 1978, - 543 p. (in Russ.).
Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3-4(2017)"^^« Linguistics
< iAgTWEST > 3
KBJCEUNrTTS
- ISSN 2310-5593 (Print) / ISSN 2519-1209 (Online) -
4. Keats J., On the Grasshopper and Cricket. - 1816. [Elektronnyy resurs]. - Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://www. poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/53210.
5. King M. L. Emancipation Proclamation. - 1963, [Elektronnyy resurs]. - Rezhim dostupa: URL: http://www. americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm.
6. Pyat' urokov tango, - 2002. [Elektronnyy resurs]. - Rezhim dostupa: http://izvestia.ru/news/258007, (in Russ.).
7. Kuznetsova T. V., Leksiko-stilisticheskaya paradigmatika prozy A. P. Chekhova, Struktura i semantika khudozhest-vennogo teksta. Doklady VII Mezhdunarodnoy Konferentsii (MOPU). - M.: Izdatel'stvo moskovskogo gosu-darstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. - 1999. - P. 197-212, (in Russ.).
8. Akunin B., Azazel', - M.: Izdatel'stvo "Zakharov", - 1998, - 237 p, (in Russ.).
9. Khazagerov T. G., Shirina L. S., Obschaya ritorika: Kurs lektsiy i slovar' ritoricheskikh figur: Ucheb. pos./Otv. red. E. N. Shiryaev. Rostov-na-Donu: Izdatel'stvo rostovskogo universiteta, - 1994, - 320 p., (in Russ.).
Information about the author
Hranush Zh. Tovmasyan, PhD in Linguistics, Docent, Associate Professor of the Chair of Linguistics and Theory
of Communication at Yerevan Brusov State University of Languages and Social Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia
Address: N. Tigranyan Str. 7, apt. 49, 0014 Yerevan, Armenia
E-mail: anushtovmasyan@yahoo.com ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9210-7459
