Fais ce que doit, advienne que pourra

Карьера   |   English   |   Разное   |   Интересы   |   Публикации

The Onomasiological Grammar

from the Methodological Point of View

by Valerij Danilenko (Irkutsk)

Our considerations are based on the following formula of onomasiological approach to language studies: extralinguistic contents (reference) - language form / language system - speech. This means that onomasiological analysis of language phenomena is relativized to the speaker's point of view. The speaker transforms extralinguistic contents into language form, the latter being selected from the language system available and translated into speech. In semasiological approach the speech the activity of the hearer is prominent. Therefore, a conversed transitions "speech - language system / language form - extralinguistic content" is analyzed. The hearer's activity is based on speech; the latter contributing to the hearer's language system formation. Using the system he comprehends language forms, conveyed by the speaker, and correlates these forms with extralinguistic contents (Даниленко В.П., 1988; 1995). 

The base of the methodological grammar structure may be represented as follows:

The structural semasiological grammar takes into account the hearer's point of view, therefore the transition "speech - language system" is under analysis. The functional semasiological grammar is focused upon language functioning from the hearer's position, i.e. the transition "language form - extralinguistic contents" is studied. The subject of the structural onomasiological grammar is to study language with the priority given to the speaker's point of view. Therefore, it considerates the translation "extralinguistic contents - language form". The functional onomasiological grammar deals with the functioning of the language from the speaker's point of view, i.e. the transition "language system - speech" is analysed. 

The semasiological grammar dealing with the transition "speech - language system / language form - extralinguistic contents " dates back to the alexandrine philology in Europe. The onomasiological grammar focusing the transition 'extralinguistic contents - language form / language system - speech" originates from the ancient language philosophy and, particularly, modistic grammar of XIII-XIV centuries. 

Division of semasiological and onomasiological studies into structural and functional aspects took shape by the 20th century. By this time conceptions in which the priority was given to structural (L. Hjelmslev) and functional (J. Firth) aspects of semasiological grammar, on the one hand, and structural (F. Brunot) and functional (G. Guillaume) aspects of onomasiological grammar, on the other hand, have been elaborated. 

Language system exists as a result of generalized ideas of speech. The primary formal generalization are made by the nearer due to the similarity in form between speech items. This sort of generalizations results in formal language structures, the parts of speech being one of these structures. The forms of the words fall under certain classes called parts of speech according mostly to their formal criteria. Thus the difference between nouns and adjectives is determined by their formal peculiarities. 

Language system may also feature non-contents formal structures (adjectival structures of gender, number an case, f.e.). Most formal structures, however, are based on definite contents (semasiological) categories. The difference between the formal and contents categories is not that they are permanently non-contents and non-formal structures respectively. The fact is that the former feature primarily formal criteria while the latter is characterized mostly by contents criteria. This is why the parts of speech are regarded as formal structures irrespectively of their having a certain amount of contents features. Conversely, substantivation of non-substantival and adjectivation of non-adjectival parts of speech resuly in contents language categories, since they embrace forms of the words belonging to different parts of speech. 

Any contents language structure is based on a quite definite contents (onomasiological) category stemming from a correlating formal (semasiological) category. Contents structures include certain structures of a formal type. Keeping this in mind one may say that the structural semasiological grammar systematizes formal language structures while the functional semasiological grammar studies the functioning of these structures used by the hearer in his speech activity. Then the structural onomasiological grammar, in its turn, systematizes contents language structures, and, finally, the functional onomasiological grammar researches into the functioning of these structures used by the speaker in his speech activity. 

The theory by L. Hjelmslev may serve as an example of the structural semasiological grammar based on the transition "text - system". The text is prior to the system and may be a horisontal line, the system being an abstract of the text may be symbolized by a vertical line:

L. Hjelmslev wrote: "It has been maintained that a language is a system, and I agree with this in principle, though very much depends upon what is meant by a "system". But even admitted that there is a sys-tem in language, we should not fail to realise that what we observe immediately is not a system, but a succession, or, as we can profitably say when talking of language, a text. The succession, and, in the case of language, the text, is the object we have to analyse " (L. Hjelmslev, 1973, p.127). The modelling of language system as an abstract structure based on text analysis the Danish scientist considers to be the main object of his theory. According to this approach the units of text (speech) reveal themselves as versions of language items. Such a conception dealing with the correlation of speech and language items has become universally recognized in modern linguistics. From this point of view we treat language as the system of various formal structures organized in hierarchal order and belonging to different language levels. 

The theory by J. Firth may be viewed as an example of functional semasiological grammar. The English scientist considers the description of numerous semantic functions of language items to be the principle goal of his theory. A semantic range of a certain language item may be described, as J. Firth it, if an exhaustible amount of its usages is available. The usages are intrincically connected with certain contexts. As all the contents of a language item can hardly be taken into account the researcher has to confine himself to most typical contexts of this item. J. Firth wrote: "Speech is not the "boundless chaos" Johnson thought it was. For most of us the roles and lines are there, and that being so, the lines can be classified and correlated with the part and also with the episodes, scenes and acts. Conversation is much more of a roughly prescribed ritual than most people think. Once someone speaks to you, you are in a relatively determined context, and you are not free just to say what you please" (Firth J., 1958, p.28). 

Therefore contents categories revealed in semasiological grammar generate that kind of contents categories which becomes a starting point of onomasiological studies. To illustrate the transformation of semasiological categories into onomasiological ones let us turn to the conversation of the point of description or thought treated as a semasiological category deduced from the meaning of the grammatical subject into the onomasiological category of the object of description designated by the basis of the statement (the theme). 

While the semasiological substance of the grammatical subject correlates solely with the substantive or its functional equivalents that of the basis of statement can be expressed by both the subject and other parts of the sentence. Thus the correlation between the formal structure of grammatical subject and the contents structure of the basis of statement may be represented as follows:

As to the formal structure (FS) of grammatical subject and the contents structure (CS) of the object of description both of them share a single contents category, i.e. the object of description. This category is referred to as a semasiological one if it correlates with the formal structure of grammatical subject expressible by either the noun in nominative or the pronoun (GSN) alongst their functional equivalents (GSNon-N). Semasiological object of description is converted into onomasiological object of description in case of its correlation with the formal structures of not the subject but also with those of the predicate, complement, attribute and adverbial modifier. This means that the basis of statement may be expressed by not only the grammatical subject but any other part of the sentence (Non-n) without mentioning various combinations made up by parts of the sentence. The expansion of the contents structure of basis of statement is much larger than of the formal structure of grammatical subject, as the former comprises a cluster of formal structures. 

The goal of structural onomasiological grammar is to describe the language system as the speaker perceives it. The speaker's speech activity comprises the two steps. First, it deals with onomasiological categories as a starting point, second, the onomasiological categories become materialized trough word and phrase-forming means of the language. In addition these categories manifested in the two forms - objective and subjective (mental) ones, i.e. in the forms of objective and mental extralinguistic contents. The first case refers to the reality to be described by the speaker. The disintegration of reality into elements is performed by the speaker in a certain way specified, according to Humboldt's adherents, by a native language of the speaker. This is responsible for national component (Volksgeist) in the contents of thought which subjectively reflects and materializes the reality in the meaning of language items. This is also responsible for the fact that a nomenclature of onomasiological categories a language level includes differs from language to language. Thus, for example, the nomenclature of onomasiological categories expressed morphologically is not the same in Czech and English. In Czech sex differences are expressed by adding some suffixes to the stem of a word. This is not the case with English. In English sex differences are expressed lexically (non-morphologically). 

The material, the structural onomasiological grammar covers, can be treated as an abstract, i.e. irrespectively of the language level the onomasiological categories correlate to in this case we deal with onomasiological grammar of interlevel type, i.e. a grammar characterized by a structure of an implicit discipline. The book "La pensee et la langue" by F. Brunot may serve as a systematic example of such a grammar. It is based on the five onomasiological zones-objects, events, circumstances, characteristics and relations. Actually, zone specification is semasiologically performed. But in his analysis of the material F. Brunot focuses on the zones mentioned rather than the disciplinary sections of grammar. This does not mean, however, that he specifies these categories without a relation to the language. Various kinds of "relations" are clearly seen to be deduced from syntactic relations; "objects", "events", "circumstances" and "characteristics" originate from nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives, respectively. 

Any language structure, according to the inter-level grammar, comprises items of various levels. The extension of contents structures in such a grammar is enormously large. The formal criterion of inter-level contents structures is not clearly specified, since the level status of language items constituting the above structures is, not considered. Thus the contents structure of indefiniteness in French comprises, according to F. Brunot, indefinite articles alongst pronouns (Quelqu'un est venu, il ne faut pas en parler a quiconque) and special syntactic constructions (On parle, N'importe qui n'importe ou) (Brunot F., 1922, p.138). 

If contents language structures are formed by solely a single level items (lexical, morphological etc.) we deal with stratificational grammar. It may be also termed as a grammar of an explicit disciplinary structure. The operation of a formal criterion in this kind of onomasiological grammar is more strict than that in the inter-level grammar. This criterion does consider the level status of language items, forming a definite contents structure. The stratificational grammar deals with items of a single level, so basic contents structures coinside with basic language levels. We deal here with the three types of wordformation structures (isolexical, isomorphological and isosyntactic) and with the three types of phrase-forming structures (lexical, morphological, syntactic). Such a view of basic language levels derives from the following conception of onomasiological grammar disciplinary structure:

Wordforming is based on the speaker's competence to create a novel word. Similarly, phrase-forming is based on the speaker's competence to create a novel sentence. Wordforming and phrase-forming have much in common so they may be termed as isomorphic (parallel). 

The isomorphism between wordforming and phrase-forming is due to the correlation between basic wordforming and phrase forming elements: MORPHEME - LEXEME, WORDFORMING STEM and WORDFORMING MEANS - FORM-MAKING STEM and FORM-MAKING MEANS, WORD-SENTENCE. 

Internal disciplinary structure of wordforming and phrase forming is the result of the similarity which exists between the units mentioned. If the first of phrase-forming involving a set of lexemes for a sentence to be created, then isolexicology deals with the first step of wordforming, involving a set of morphemes for a word to be created. Similarly, morphology studies the second step of phrase forming, i.e. the operations connected with form-making stems and means, isomorphology studies the second step of wordforming, i.e. the operations connected with wordforming stems and means. Finally, syntax investigates the third step in phrase-forming leading to a novel sentence, and isosyntax deals with the third step of wordforming, aimed at a novel word creation. 

The content-oriented grammar by L. Weisgerber (Weisgerber L., 1962) may serve as an example of straficational structural onomasiological grammar. The description of german contents structures is performed by L. Weisgerber within the framework of this or that language level. Thus wordforming analysis was aimed at solely isomorphological contents structures. The difference betwen the structural aspects of semasiological and onomasiological wordforming is as follows. The structural semasiological wordforming implies the classification based formal similarity of wordforming means. This case covers, for instance, the verb with "be" as the prefix. The meaning of these verbs forming one of the semasiological wordforming structures in German range the ornativity (e.g. bewaffen) to factivity (e.g. beruhigen). The structural onomasiological wordforming is based on onomasiological categories of ornativity, factivity etc. Using the categories expressed by wordforming substance, or "lexical blocks", as L. Weisgerber termed them. These structures include several formal wordforming structures called "niches". Thus, in the lexical block of factivity there are niches characterized by prefixes "be" (befreien), "ver" (vergrossen) etc. 

The formal criterion in the stratificational onomasiological grammar is less strict than that in the semasiological grammar. Both formal and contents structures are composed of elements of the same language level. The formal features of the first kind of structures, however, are more concrete than these the second kind of structures. Thus a formal structure represented by a certain morphological sublevel, i.e. nouns, adjectives etc. Conversely, a contents structure represented by a certain class of parts of speech includes units of various morphological sublevels. For example, a contents morphological structure, based on the category of substance, embraces nouns and other parts of speech substantivized as a result of phrase-forming. Such a composition this structure more extensive as compared with the corresponding formal structure. 

The onomasiological structures comprise items being used both strictly and figuratively in speech. The contents language structure consists of two zones. They are non-transitional and transitional. The transitional use of a language unit takes place in speech, this use, however, would be impossible without generalized views of transposition types. This is why the transpositional zones are also language categories. Thus substantial morphological onomasiological structure embraces substantivized adjectives, verbs and other non-substantive parts of speech. The speaker must know the rules of substantivation patterns. 

Both non-transpositional and transpositional zones are intrinsically organized. The transpositional zone covers metaphor and metonymy. As the non-transpositional zones they are organized as structures with a centre and periphery. For example, the nouns denoting independent objects ( a tree, a table etc) are the centre of substantial morphological structure. The nouns denoting characteristics (whiteness, lindless etc.), processes (a run, a game etc.) and other non-independent objects constitute the periphery of this structure. The peculiarity of the peripheral nouns is that they correlate with the substantial contents within the framework of intellectual contents rather than the contents of realaty covered by the onomasiological category of substance. 

There is no great gap between the intellectual contents of onomasiological category and the meaning of a language item. The selection of a language item out of this or that contents structure results in the transformation of extralinguistic contents of onomasiological category into linguistic (semantic) contents of a language item. A detailed representation of this process may be given as follows: extralinguistic contents of the reality (object) - extralinguistic contents of the mentality (thought) - language contents (meaning) of a language item (language sign). 

This process can be called the nomination activity (in the broad of the term). The final step of the process is the selection of language item for a production to be performed. The transition from language contents to speech is happening actualization. This actualization is studied by the functional onomasiological grammar (Даниленко В.П., 1986; 1992). 

The functional onomasiological grammar is based on speech activity aimed at the transformation of language items into speech. It is this process that is called actualization. Within a single speech act actualizes only a few language units. Therefore, a researcher must base his analysis on a generalized conception of speech acts. This enables him to treat the actualization act as a transition from language system to speech. 

The illustration to functional onomasiological grammar is "psychomechanics" by G. Guillaume. He considered the analysis of the internal mechanism of the transition from language to speech to be his main task. The transition from language (langue) to phrase (discours) is interpreted as a speech act (act de langage). This act is the main subject of the psychomechanics by G. Guillaume. The mechanism of transition from language to discours is stated by the author as follows: "When I am going to do a speech act I must apply to the language which in my mind as a steady essence… The discours is the final result of the speech act. It is the passing construction of my mentality actualizing with the speech and determed by the passing need of expression" (Guillaume G., 1973, p.12). 

Despite his mentioning "the need of expression", his model of speech activity lacks the idea of transformation of extralinguistic contents into language form. The researcher the structural onomasiological aspect of his model for functional onomasiological aspect. 

"Speech act, G. Guillaume emphasizes, is the transition from language to discours" (ibid.). 

Thus, the base of the methodological structure of grammar may be presented as follows:

References

1. Brunot F. La pensee et la langue. - Paris, 1922. 

2. Даниленко В.П. Ономасиологическая сущность концепции функциональной грамматики Вильема Матезиуса // Филологические науки, 1986, № 1, с.62-66. 

3. Danilenko V.P. On the Relation between Subject-Centred and Predicate-Centred Theories of Sentence-Forming (V. Mathesius and L. Tesniere) // Philologica Pragensia, 1981, № 1, с.30-35. 

4. Даниленко В.П. Ономасиологическое направление в грамматике. - Иркутск, 1990. 

5. Даниленко В.П. Дисциплинарная структура грамматики // Филологические науки, 1992, № 3, с. 68-78. 

6. Firth J. Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951. - London, 1958. 

7. Guillaume G. Grammaire particuliere du francais et grammaire generale. - Quebec, 1973. 

8. Hjelmslev L. Essais linguistique 2. - Copenhauge, 1973. 

9. Weisgerber L. Grundzuge der inhaltbezogenen Grammatik. - Dusseldorf, 1962.

Экзамены

Языковеды

Философы

Домой

© Valery Vron 2002