WEB-ресурс научно-практических конференций

К.филол.н. Демиденко К.А.

Кемеровский институт (филиал) Российского государственного торгово-экономического университета

PRESENTATION OF THE ASSERTION MODEL FOR THE WORD FAMILY WITH THE ROOT "PAY"

At the present stage of linguistics development the phenomenon of motivation and motivational relationships is considered from different perspectives.

The phenomenon of motivation is considered both from a purely lexicological perspective and in terms of dynamism and activity. O. Blinova investigated the phenomenon of word motivation as an object of lexicology. She determined its status, main concepts and problems. Numerous works on this topic were summarized in her monograph "Phenomena of Words Motivation: Lexicological Aspect" [2]. In this concept motivational relationships are considered to be interword links explaining the sound-semantic status of a word. The epidigmatic system of words is based on the system of human activity. Motivation is interpreted not as a type of human activity having metalinguistic power of explanation, but as a kind of activity ruled by laws of activity and directed by the language form. P. Katyshev and M.Osadchiy define motivational multidimensionality of word-formation form as an outstanding example of language creation activity based on the dynamics of linguistic sign [6].

In spite of established differences in understanding the motivational phenomenon the authors of all the concepts face the necessity to discover the way of affirmation of motivational links. It matches the laws of scientific logic for to comprehend the phenomenon of motivation it is necessary to prove its existence in each particular situation. Motivation studies worked out several ways of proving motivational relations. In some aspects it can be divided into two groups: metalinguistic and “natural”. The first group contains such forms of motivational relations affirmation as morpho-derivational analysis and motivational definition. The second group contains free association experiment and the stream of natural speech (including written texts).

In the process of morpho-derivational analysis a derivational model is extrapolated to a word. Some components, showing that the lexical unit is not primary and pointing to the basic sign, are revealed as a result of such an analysis. The proofs of such connections based on a motivational unit target the same aim as morpho-derivational analysis. This aim is to point out the basic sign as the primary unit. A motivational statement is constructed as a statement: x is y (A payer is a person who pays money). Morpho-derivational analysis and definitive motivational statements are actions of metalinguistic efforts of the speaker based on scientific and linguistic categories: the word derivation model and lexical definition.

We would like to clarify some points concerning these statements. Intuitive morpho-derivational analysis can be performed by native speakers on the basis of their view of the language system. On the other hand, any language speaker can give a definition of a word. But it doesn’t make these proofs of motivational relationships “natural” and non-metalinguistic. The problem is that we turn not to the linguistic activity of the person, but to his metalinguistic ideas, though rather naive and “natural” in a way.

Using metalinguistic constructions in discovery of linguistic phenomenon is the Achilles' Heel both of morpho-derivational analysis and of definitive motivational assertion construction as ways of motivational relation affirmation. To identify a linguistic phenomenon is possible only in the language itself. Metalinguistic categories can be applied only at the second stage of research – the stage of scientific conceptualization of the phenomenon.

In this respect “natural” methods of proving motivational relations are crucially different from metalinguistic ones. Free association experiment does not activate conscious representation of the language system. It activates relations in word families mostly subconscious but obvious and relevant to the speaker.

Observation of natural speech reveals that words of the same family co-function in a process of discourse development of the topic. Even though correct, these instruments still have disadvantages. For example, observation of natural speech seldom gives many results. Trying to avoid tautology, speakers do not usually combine words of the same family in a neutral style. It is possible, though, in texts with word-play where using words of the same family creates pan. Pan specifies conceptualization of motivational relation, submitting it to laws of humor: the author focuses on paradox of form and context. The detailed analysis of this phenomenon in terms of motivations can be found in the works of N.Golev [4].

Though advantageous in association experiment the principle of subconscious reaction still has some disadvantages. Subconscious reaction states motivational relation but gives no information about its quality. Judging by this association experiment the reason for word connections is not obvious. Another disadvantage of spontaneous reaction is that often associative reaction is guided only by sound, but semantics are unvalued. Consequently being associative, the relation does not accrue the status of motivational.

Obviously there is a need in such motivational relation confirmation which would neutralize all the disadvantages of the associative experiment results. It must not only ascertain root connections of the words, but also demonstrate its foundation, at the same time not depriving this motivational connection of itsactivity nature, not making it a scientific linguistic construction only.

In our opinion a step in this direction has already been made. Derivatioigists consider propositional relations between cognate words to be of great importance: baker (subject) – bake (predicate) – bakery (locos) [9] . Propositional relations are to a certain degree metalinguistic models constructed in terms of syntax, but they are based on one of the most important categories of human activity – situation – which links cognate words into the interacting and cooperating unity.

Thus it is the situation that can become the key unit in proving motivational connection on the basis of natural activity categories.

It should be noted that situation is a potential unit and can have different forms of explication: to direct a discourse activity proposing discourse logic, to arrange language dynamics such as word formation processes (new words appear in the places of the empty valences of a situation), system functioning of linguistic units (the logic of the situation influences distribution of cognate synonyms [8]) and so on.

To prove the motivational relationship on the basis of situation it is important to generate the method of its explication. A communicative sentence containing cognate words is the most natural form of situation explication. However, as it was mentioned, words of the same family are seldom included in the same sentence, so there is a need for a special form of motivational relation confirmation which is a relative record of potential communicative sentences containing cognate words.

We offer assertion as a form of proving motivational relation. Assertion is a statement connecting cognate words using a model of a communicative sentence, not a definition. For example: a payer <the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee> gives money to a payee <the person who should receive the money> .

The next step is motivational assertion modeling of a word family as the unity. Our concept of the motivation modeling of a word family is based on works of E.Kubryakova, P.Katishev, who offered mental analysis of motivation relation [5, 7].

They considered motivation to be a concept relationship between words, not a structural one. Another basis for our modeling are works on propositional word-formation [1, 3, 9].

In these studies the relations among cognate words are represented as propositions connecting cognate words by specific syntax relationships.

Methods of the motivational assertion modeling of word family

All the possible motivational connections of cognate words are examined and formulated as assertions. Ex.: a { paymaster <a person or organization that pays and therefore controls another person or organization>} { pays < to give money to in return for goods or services rendered >} money;

1. When all possible connections are formulated, the word family is presented as a variety of motivational statements.
2. Each motivational unit is given an order number.
3. Each unit is assigned a motivational coefficient equal to the number of its connections in the word family.
4. Considering motivational coefficients the motivational core and periphery are determined: motivational units with the biggest number of motivational connections are called core units, motivational units with the smallest number of motivational connections are called periphery units.
5. In cases of multiple meanings each word should be considered separately. Each lexico-semantic variant is a motivational unit, f. ex.: a { payment ² <an amount of money> } ₁₀ is { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ to someone; a { payment ¹ <the act of paying the money> } ₄ is made to a { payee < the person who should receive the money > } ₃ .
6. In the presented model there are two types of polimotivation. There is semantic and structural polimotivation. If a motivational unit can be connected with two or more motivational units in the word family, such polimotivation is structural, ex.: a { payer < the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee> } ₁ { pays < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ money; a { payer < the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee >} ₁ gives money to a { payee < the person who should receive the money >} _3.

If a motivational unit can be connected with one unit in the word family by two or more motivational statements, such polimotivation is called semantic, f.ex.: something { payable <has to be paid or it can be paid >} ₆ can be { paid <to give money in return for goods or services rendered>} ₂ ; something { payable <has to be paid or it can be paid >} ₆ must be { paid <to give money in return for goods or services rendered>} ₂ to someone .

As a result the assertion model of the word family is presented by a list of motivational statements and a chart of motivational coefficients.

Assertion model of the word family with root "pay"

A { payer < the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee > } ₁ { pays < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ money;

A { payer < the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee >} ₁ gives money to a { payee < the person who should receive the money >} ₃ ;

A { payer < the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee >} ₁ makes a { payment ¹ <the act of paying the money>} ₄ ;

{ Pay <the money that one gets from one’s employer as wages or salary>} ₅ is { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ ;

Something { payable <has to be paid or can be paid >} ₆ can be { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ ;

Something { payable <has to be paid or can be paid >} ₆ must be { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ to someone;

Money is { paid <when you are paid , you get your wages or salary from your employer>} ₇ to a { payee < the person who should receive the money >} ₃ ;

A { paymaster <a person or organization that pays and therefore controls another person or organization>} ₈ { pays < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ money;

A { payoff <a payment which is made to someone, often secretly or illegally, so that they will not cause trouble>} ₉ is { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ to someone;

A { payment ² <an amount of money>} ₁₀ is { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ to someone;

A { payment ¹ <the act of paying the money>} ₄ is made to a { payee < the person who should receive the money >} ₃ ;

{ Payola < bribery in return for the unofficial promotion of a product in the media >} ₁₁ is { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ to someone;

A { payout <a sum of money, especially a large one given for example by an insurance company or as a prize>} ₁₂ is { paid < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ to someone;

A { payroll < a list of a company’s employees and the amount of money owed to them>} ₁₃ is used by { payers < the one who pays a particular kind of bill or fee >} ₁ ;

{ Payees < the person who should receive the money >} ₃ are on a { payroll < a list of a company’s employees and the amount of money>} ₁₃ ;

A { payroll < a list of a company’s employees and the amount of money owed to them>} ₁₃ is used for { payments ¹ <the act of paying the money>} ₄ ;

A { payroll < a list of a company’s employees and the amount of money owed to them>} ₁₃ is used to give { payments ² <an amount of money>} ₁₀ ;

Someone { pays < to give money in return for goods or services rendered >} ₂ money according to a { payroll < a list of a company’s employees and the amount of money owed to them>} ₁₃ ;

The first column contains the motivational units and the second column their motivational coefficients. The chart presents these units in the motivational coefficients' descending order. Consequently, the core motivational units of the word family are shown at the top of the chart.

The core unit of the word family with the root "pay" is the verb "to pay" (motivational coefficient – 10). This happens because verbs have more valences (potential abilities to cooperate with other words).

Two more core motivational units are the words "payer" and "payee" (motivational coefficients – 4). They present subjects for actions which makes them active in the word family. The word "payroll" also has a high motivational coefficient and is another core of the word family under consideration (motivational coefficient – 5).

We should emphasize that the theoretical importance of assertion modeling is reflected in the fact that this model is the last step from the motivational analysis of separate words to the motivologic modeling of the word family as a unity in the cognitive-discursive aspect.

References:

1. Араева, Л. А. Словообразовательный тип как семантическая микросистема. Суффиксальные субстантивы (на материале русских говоров) [Текст]: Дис. ... д. филол. н. 10.02.01 / Л. А. Араева. – Москва, 1994. – 457 с.
2. Блинова, О.И. Явление мотивации слов (лексикологический аспект) [Текст] / О.И. Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1984. - 191с.
3. Гинзбург, Е. Л. Словообразование и синтаксис / Е. Л. Гинзбург. – М.: Наука, 1979. - 264 с.
4. Голев, Н. Д. Динамический аспект лексической мотивации [Текст] / Н. Д. Голев. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1989. – 252 с.
5. Мотивационная многомерность словообразовательной формы [Текст] / П.А. Катышев. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 2001. – 129 с.
6. Катышев, П.А., Осадчий, М.А. Когнитивно – дискурсивное моделирование полимотивированности [Текст] / П.А. Катышев, М.А. Осадчий // Лингвистика как форма жизни. – Кемерово: Кузбассвузиздат, 2002. – С. 117-132.
7. Кубрякова, Е.С. Когнитивные аспекты словообразования и связанные с ним правила инференции (семантического вывода) [Текст] / Е.С. Кубрякова // Язык и знание. – М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2004. - 560 с.
8. Осадчий, М. А. Дистрибуция однокоренных синонимов в пропозициональной структуре лексического гнезда [Текст] / М. А. Осадчий // Успехи современного естествознания. - № 5 – М.: Акад. естествознания, 2005. – С.96 – 99.
9. Янцененцкая, М. Н. Пропозициональный аспект словообразования (обзор работ сибирских дериватологов) [Текст] / М. Н. Янцененцкая // Актуальные проблемы региональной лингвистики и истории Сибири. – Кемерово: Кузбассвузиздат,1992. – 194 с.