CC BY
40
7. Мейзерська I. В. Прийменники сучасно! украшсько! мови у лексикографтному висвптленш. - Одеса: Астропринт, 2012.
8. Загштко А. П. Ступет i рiвнi прийменниковост/Sbornik clanku «Ucrainica Souasna Ukrainistyka», 1. cast, red. prof. Josef Anders. - Olomouc, 2008.
9. Загштко А. П., Данилюк I. Г., Сигар А. В., Щукина I. А. Словник укра'хнських прийменнишв. Сучасна укра!нська мова. - Донецьк: Вид. Дон. ун., 2007.
10. Лучик А. А. Проблема прехЦних явищ у мовних системах/Зб. наук. праць "Лшгвктичт дослЦження" Ред. Л. А. Ли-сиченко. - Харшв: ХДУ iм. Г. Сковороди, 2007.
11. ЛучикА. А., Антонова О. А., Дубровська I. Укра'шсько-Польський Словник Еквiваленгiв Слова. - К.: НАУКМа, 2011.
12. Przybylska R. Wydzielenie przyimkow wtornych we frazach temporalnych/Jfzyk polski. - Warszawa, 1998.
13. Milewska B. Slownik polskich przyimkow wtornych. - Gdansk, 2003.
14. Lesz-Duk M. Przyimki wtorne w jfzyku polskim.- Cz^stochowa, 2011.
15. Lachur C. Semantyka przestrzenna polskich przyimkow prefigowanych na tle rosyjskim. - Opole: Wyd. Uniwersytet Opolski, 1999.
Molea Viorica,
Moldova States University, Doctor of philological sciences, associate professor, the Faculty of Philology E-mail: molea_viorica@yahoo.com
A new cyberspace form of communication achieved through written and oral means
Abstract: The emergence of a new type of human communication, and more specific the digital orality, develops a gap in the reinterpretation of the oral — written opposition that we can witness nowadays. It is a hybrid form between oral and written human communication, the so-called "written orality", achieved by means of the cyberspace, the internet. Thus, two types of virtual texts can be distinguished: the ones which mostly use a standard literary language (emails, blogs) and the texts, which are mostly made of orality elements (chat, SMS, chatgroup, twitter). This new form of human communication, developed in the cyberspace, represents another level in the human language evolution.
Keywords: communication, virtual texts, digital orality, a hybrid form, the internet.
Many researchers highlight unprecedented aspects of the computer-mediated communication, which are eventually mirrored in the usual, traditional communication. The emergence of a new type of human communication, and more specific the digital orality, develops a gap in the oral/written opposition. It is a hybrid form between oral and written communication, the so-called written orality, achieved by means of the cyberspace, the Internet. Some years ago the researcher loan Milica stated that "under the influence of internet communication, the stylistic configuration of the language could record new versions of informal styles (...)" [3, 166]. We assume this fact is already happening and, in addition to the traditional types of oral, informal or substandard communication, especially of spontaneous, unprepared speech, another orality aspect, the "written orality" has emerged that expresses new tendencies in the technological evolution of the language. It implies all the manifestation forms from the virtual network that do not comply with the standard norms. It is about the language of SMS, chat or social network conversations, comments written on sites of various official publications, and partially, of the e-mails. "A.V. Kuznetsov mentions that before the emergence of the Internet the spontaneous speech developed orally. However, the live, natural speech is fixed in the written form on the internet" [11]. The Russian researcher,
who investigated this phenomenon very attentively, by analyzing the users' communication in the online applications, like ICQ, Skype, or on social networks like Facebook or Vkon-takte, states that "though the users' messages are in a written form, in reality, they have orality peculiarities" [11]. Moreover, the linguist made a statistics in order to prove his statements. He asserts that "about 300 messages, of ICQ, Skype and Facebook network users, were examined within this project. Typical characteristics for oral familiar style have been identified in these messages in 286 cases" [11], listing a series of its peculiarities.
Some researchers believe that these are separate, already well defined languages, with specific features. Thus «this diversification is described by David Crystal (2006), who uses concepts such as "Netspeak" and "e-discourses" to propose a separation of varieties such as "the language of e-mail", "the language of chatgroups", "the language of MUDs"» [3, 165]. We can find a relevant description of this linguistic phenomenon in I. Urusciuc's work, who wisely states that "Setting itself apart through its speed, efficiency, dynamic character, important ability to store data, and utilitarianism, the virtual nature of the new language (with its specific SMS, chat, Messenger, e-mail forms), influenced by the English language, asserts itself as a universally accepted means of communication inside and
outside the electronic environment (...). Thus, we witness the increasingly apparent rise of a special, original (though based on clichés), simple and synthetic language, (with its own rules and methods of use)" [8, 114]. E. Ungureanu also notes that this type of online communication (found in chat rooms, discussion pages, blog comments, websites, chat-groups, web portals, twitter etc.) "is achieved both through writing and reading" [7, 6]. It is produced based on the classic face-to-face model, only without the visual and auditory contact, which are important elements in a spoken conversation, and the spoken text is delivered in writing. Amza R. M. describes the phenomenon in the following way: "Online or chat communication is a form of interaction very similar to phatic communication, the difference being that there is no visual and auditory contact" [1, 437]. Thus, the core issue in chat communication is the lack of a mechanism that would convey emotions, feelings and attitudes, i. e. the lack of nonverbal and para-verbal aspects in communication. Therefore, the users of this type of communication create different graphic representations, icons, the so-called emoticons to express the emotional impact of written online conversation. A face-to-face "meeting" produced through writing results in a partial renewal of the written code. For this it is necessary "to find a written or para-verbal substitute for intonation marks and the facial expressions and gestures made during a conversation, in particular those related to expressing emotions" [1, 438]. Thus, as I have said initially the internet users, who are mostly young people, have created a set of symbols, which capture different states, attitudes, the so-called emoticons (in Romanian, emoticoane or emoticonuri, according to different researchers; a term not found in dictionaries). The word "emoticon" comes from the English word "emotion", which denotes a feeling, and "icon", which denotes a symbol. They are short, simple and universally acknowledged. However, emoticons have not been developed based on any regulating standards [2, 4]. Elena Ungureanu, referring to icons that replace the nonverbal and para-verbal language, agrees on the plural form of the Romanian word "emoticon" in -e (emoticoane i. e. emoticons in English) and claims that since in online conversations "mimics, gestures, tone, voice modulations disappear, these being extremely important for reproducing the natural language", they were replaced with "icons called emoticons, representing suggestive images of a small size close to the one of the capitalized letters" aimed to "facilitate the description of emotions we experience when we communicate; and make online communication faster" [7, 10]. Another name for these signs used both to express mood and the phatic function of the virtual dialogue is "imagem", being suggested by I. Pomian, who notes that the Romanian language and "romgleza" (blending of Romanian and English) were the favorite code in internet conversations, to which animation is added (imageme i. e. images). "According to the researcher, imagem (n., neutral in Romanian, pl. «imageme») is a symbol or a combination of symbols used to post some emotional content or opinions in an extremely concise manner" [5]. However, despite the fact
that these iconic elements are widely spread in chats, they have not been sufficiently highlighted yet by the specialists. There is no statistics of their classification as well as no single methodology for their use because they are too many (any user can "invent" an emoticon), it is very difficult to remember even by the most ardent supporters and users. Many researchers hold the opinion that we need a selection of most relevant emoticons for them to be tools of convenient nonverbal and para-verbal communication on the internet. Thus, emoticons are not a rigid, accessible to everyone, well done system. We believe that it will take a long time until they are included in a normative linguistic framework. The process of creation and "production" of emoticons is ongoing, and their use in online conversations is at the users' discretion. Users often display several kinds of emoticons for similar emotional states.
One can distinguish two types of virtual written texts: those employing mostly a standard literary language (emails, blogs) and texts that constitute the elements of orality (chats, SMS, chatgroups, twitter). Mladin C. distinguishes these types as follows: "There are some significant differences in how to write an email, to chat in chatgroups or on blogs. Here we mention only three of them: (l) the SMS and chat are closer to oral communication; blogs and chatgroups are closer to written communication (...)" [4, 239].
Referring to variants of virtual communication and the expression of orality in them, we distinguish two types of digital "orality": a) written; b) represented by the video channel.
a) Digital orality in the written communication, represented by the virtual network, involves multiple aspects: email, phone SMS, chat, comments to articles published on various websites, all social networks.
If we talk about writing in communication on the Internet, we encounter a term that complements that of the digital orality, and namely "cyber-writing", "a generic term that has become increasingly widespread in the foreign scientific literature («writing in the online environment»)" denoting "quite different forms and practices of the written communication that can be put together in order to attain a methodological simplification and because they have more common features than differences (SMS, IRC (acronym for Internet Relay Chat)" [4, 239]. This new aspect of maintaining contact between individuals in the virtual network "which reinvents the epistolary style, is also largely due to reconfiguration of its initial functions (communication and socializing), as well as the addition of new ones" [4, 239]. It is carried out in both online and offline versions, the latter being represented primarily by e-mail and blog, and the other virtual access routes (with some variations: for instance, expecting a faster response) such as skype, facebook etc. "The offline communication is represented by e-mail and discussion groups. E-mail is the most common method of communication because it is the easiest to use," R. M. Amza notes [1, 437]. The offline version has similarities with the traditional letter when the sender is waiting for an answer, possibly for a long time. However, the waiting time here does not depend on the objective factors
(such as the mail in the old method of epistolary communication), but purely on the subjective ones (the receiver's availability/unavailability).
Online communication implies a number of new elements, features that reflect ongoing processes of creating this unique form, which contributes to the evolution of the language, whatever means are used. Thus, the features of these varieties of the virtual language take an increasingly clear shape, the first basic feature that stands out being the orality, as mentioned by everyone who investigates the phenomenon. It is obvious that the language used in online conversations is drastically revised because it is reproduced in the written form, being oral in its essence. The rules of spelling, punctuation, grammar and style are ignored because of several factors that characterize this new method of communication. Although it has many other advantages, like speed, saving time and money, psychological comfort, greater social inclusion, especially for shy people, this method of "talking", of communicating took people by surprise because it is absolutely new, and they found themselves in the position of improvising on the fly certain rules of behaviour and expression in the virtual network. We find an extremely intense mobility of the forms of expression in the conversation on the Internet. Ion Urusciuc lists some of the problems related to the new form of human communication through text messages, stating that: "With all the advantages they offer, text messages drift further and further from the rigours of literary language, ignoring elementary grammatical norms" [8, 115]. Or: "Another feature of the virtual language of text messages is writing with the capital letters or small letters, depending on the intention of the discourse. In order to individualize a word we often write: Tre s plec URGNT! (= Trebuie saplec URGENT). Generally the capital letters «translate» the nervousness, the emergency, impatience or powerful emotions" [8, 115]. It should also be mentioned, that for a faster virtual communication a permissive linguistic structure was created, in which different forms found their place, a lot of them being recognized through usage, and are inaccessible to those uninitiated, for example, the abbreviation of the words, acronyms well-known by the most hardcore internet users, the slang created through truncation, the well-known "romglish". A specific element which is also worrisome for philologists is the disestablishment of the orthographic, grammatical and lexical norms. There are samples of this kind of chat discussions that are published on different blogs. Below there is an example taken from V. Vintila's blog «"Cred k apare ... da numi explic qm no aparut deja p pc.... Am vazut un clippyoutube qm juk unup laptop gta 4 ... qm se poate...!"; 2. "In momentul de fatza exact sa iti spun nu §tiu, k mi lam facut la comanda §i erau Reduceri §i alea alea Dar am un site perfect... daca pot s il postez aicia.. e legat de componente §i prostii deastea daca e ilegal reclama ... revino cu un reply sa iti dauprin pm"» [9].
Lexical changes and innovations used by those who write SMS are significant. The "phenomenon of excessive prefixing, a model taken from the other languages and specific to
the modern communication ((superfericit (a), (super-happy) megaocupat (a (mega-busy) etc.), the growing influence of the English words (cool, OK etc.)" [8, 115]. All kinds of abbreviations which cannot be decoded by everybody are extremely popular in the internet communication. Bloggers themselves admit this, saying that there are a lot of abbreviations and emoticons and the acronyms that are used frequently on all social or online communication networks (Yahoo, Messenger, Facebook, Twitter etc.) "there are those from English, although there are abbreviations of autochthonous words" [6]. C. Popa offers a list of abbreviations used by the internet users on the social networks. Below there are some of them "ASL: Age/Sex/Location — Varsta, sex, locatie; FB: Facebook; GM: Msg: Message; PLS or PLZ: Please; NPC — Nu ai pentru ce (don't mention it.); NP: No Problem; HRU — How are you?; CF: Ce faci? (How are you?); NB: Noapte buna; (Good night); BN: Bine (Good, OK); E1 (I); F2F: Face to face; 143: I love you 4: for; A5: High five." [6]. It could be noticed, from the dictionary made up by the blogger, that there is no system of creating these communication forms, that the abbreviated structures, the ciphered words are ad-hoc, random inventions that appeared at the users' discretion and as a preference of this new communication form.
b) Digital orality — video conversation is made through a virtual network such as Skype, Facebook etc, in a non-classic oral form, since not all the constitutive elements of a face-to-face conversation are observed.
Even if there is a direct contact between two or more interlocutors, other conditions of making a spontaneous and unimpeded speech do not function. It is about the extra-verbal elements or let us say the situational contexts: the framework, the circumstances are selected deliberately, usually being a closed space. On the one hand, if it is open, not panoramic but only sequential, then the conversation manifests differently than in the natural conditions without a framework for psychological openness.
Considering that, there are several defining features for this type of digital orality:
- the conversation is launched in the conditions of a limited non-verbal expression due to the small sizes of the emission and reception channel (the PC or mobile phone screen);
- some movements, for instance, made by the whole body, are either limited or absent, again because of the small size of the maneuver space;
- some extra-verbal important elements (the smell or the touch) are not implied in the video dialogue in order to supply the discussion with an appropriate character (in case of the informal conversation).
On the other hand, the digital orality presupposes a totally new approach of the familiar conversation. It is produced in the virtual network among whoever joins it. It means the familiar tone, friendly and somehow intimate, informal addressing is not related only to those who have a veritable status in this way, in real life. Unknown individuals may often appear in
this role (of close friends whom one can tell everything with the specific intonation and vocabulary), very different people concerning interests, social status, sex or age. These people usually behave in the network, as old friends, as equals who share many mutual things, but in the real life, they would not even greet each other because they would not recognize each other. In this case, we can speak about a virtual familiarity only specific for virtual communication. That is why there is a problem related to human identity, which manifests through frustrations and disappointments in the real space, through a state of dissatisfaction especially among young people, which leads to a detachment from reality, to a retiring to the closed and illusive space of the Internet. Alongside the advantages of liberation and decomplexation for the individuals who have such problems, offered by this type of communication, it becomes a threat of anarchy of the language, of the expression order for diverse niches of speakers, having the threat of amalgamation of the styles, which would flow to the real communication. We can also see a damage of the standard language, a fact already registered in some online publications, especially on the blogs of the accredited websites, miming in this way a coalition with the young and mediocre maj ority and creating a trend of communication nonchalance, where the dignity and the sobriety of expression become obsolete and outdated. An example of this kind taken from a blog on the official website: Da, asta este o simpla observatie: in Moldova KGB-ul e cool. E beton, e tare, e mi§to, e bat. §i kaghebi§tii is tari. §i FSB-i$tii, de§i suna un pic maiprost. §i securi§tii, in general. Oricum, kaghebi§tii sunt cei mai tari. (KGB-ul e cool Alexandru Vakulovski, deschide.md, 20.10.14), where we highlight, even from the title, an avalanche of familiar, slangy, up to date terms, which we very often certify in discussions of the young people, including communication on the Internet. Thus, the philologist researchers observe trends of colloquialism, impregnating communication with elements of orality. These, as interpreted by some researchers, are: "1) the tendency to increase communication; 2) the tendency of a substantial use of colloquial-familiar language in communication (...); 3) the tendency toward an
expressive communication (the creative aspect and the playful function of the language are more often observed in communication on the Internet); 4) the tendency of vulgarization and trivialization of the tongue" [10].
We must point out that similar texts to those from the social networks, i. e. taken from digital orality, are already present in newspapers, in publishing opinion articles, especially in the essay-pamphlets. A good example of this is the following: §i atunci, Zgonea — singurul cetatean roman care a spus:... "Eu nu scriu kpers publica... scriu k zgonea... altfel con-tul era diferit... dar se pare k e greutate sa intelegeti... no problem" — a lovit din nou, nuclear, raspunzand atacului lui Motreanu: "Pai, §titi ceva... Noi (PSD-ul) ii spuneam lui An-tonescu, Dorel... ". Intelegeti?!Fereasca-neDumnezeu!! (Marian Sultanoiu Dorel, colegul lui Zgonea, colegul lui Mihai Vitea-zul, gandul.info, 02.06.14). The values of this type of language are on surface decoding itself through the elements of subtle satire and irony by displaying a neglecting attitude towards the concerned personage. Therefore, we discover that the realities of the virtual language pass hurriedly into the publicist style, empowered to spread legalize innovations and trends in the evolution of the language.
"What will be the future of this language that is just born?, V Vintila asks. Is it just a fad or a transient phase experienced by the young people and which will fade in time or it will turn at a time in a new official language, the language of the Internet?" [9]. We will not try to make forecasts about how this new language will evolve "oral/written"; the fact is that it exists and is distinguished from the other forms of communication that exist so far. It is obviously created on the basis of the existing traditional language; noting was invented in this regard, other linguistic systems of signs have not been created; they were only slightly retouched, slightly transfigured with pragmatic communication purposes. However, the newness, freshness of the verbal expression in the Internet denotes endless possibilities of language, an infinite number of choices for communication. Two conditions are needed for this: new technical means and creativity.
References:
1. Amza R. M. Forme si träsäturi ale comunicärii mediate de computer. in: Limba Romänä: Structurä si functionare. -Bucuresti: Editura Universitätii din Bucuresti, 2005.
2. Grosseck M.-D., Negru A. Chat-ul §i blog-ul - limbaj e ale noii generatii §i influenta lor asupra comunicärii//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://culturasicomunicare.com/pdf/2008/negru.pdf (visited: 18.08.13).
3. Milicä I. Expresivitatea argoului. - Iasi: Editura Universitätii „Alexandru loan Cuza", 2009.
4. Mladin C. I. Spre o recodare a modului de comunicare scripturalä. Sau despre tirania democraticä a cyberlimb@jului// [Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.philippide.ro/distorsionari_2008/237-248 %20MLADIN_RED. pdf (visited: 18.05.13).
5. Pomian I. Stilul functional electronic, 2009//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.dacoromania.inst-puscariu.ro/articole/2009_2_3.pdf (visited: 09.08.13).
6. Popa C. Limbajul de Facebook: Ce inseamnä 143. Consultä DICTIONARUL, 10 mai 2013, RTV.net//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.rtv.net/lista-celor-mai-utilizate-prescurtari-folosite-pe-facebook-reactia-specialis-tilor-la-acest-fenomen_72918.html (visited: 08.09.13).
7. Ungureanu E. Emoticonul in limbajul mesageriei instantanee. in: Creativitate lingvalä: de la semn la text. - Bälti: Editura PIM, 2014. - P. 269- 278.
Particularities of onomatopoeic lexicon studies in modern Korean
8. Urusciuc I. Natura semiotico-gramaticala a limbajului virtual scris al SMS-urilor. In: „Limba Romana". - Chisinau, 2008. -nr. 3-4 (153-154), martie-aprilie. - Р. 113-119.
9. Vintila V. Limbajul messenger, Blog, 27.09.2011//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://reteaualiterara.ning. com/profiles/blogs/limbajul-messenger?xg_source=activity (visited: 18.08.13).
10. Колокольцева Т. Н. Интернет-коммуникация как зеркало основных тенденций развития и функционирования русского языка. - : Электронный научно-образовательный журнал ВГПУ «Грани познания». - Волгоград ,Де-кабрь, 2011.- № 4(14)//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: www.grani.vspu.ru,http://grani.vspu.ru/files/pub-lics/1325226177.pdf (visited: 01.04.13).
11. Кузнецов А. В. Письменная разговорная речь в онлайн-коммуникации [Текст]//Молодой ученый. - 2011. - № 3, Т. 2. - С. 24-26//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.moluch.ru/archive/26/2877 (visited: 18.05.13).
Okhrimenko Vitaliy Aleksandrovich, Kiev National Linguistic University, Postgraduate student, Department of Eastern Philology
E-mail: vitalik126@mail.ru
Particularities of onomatopoeic lexicon studies in modern Korean
Abstract: this article offers a study of onomatopoeic lexis in modern Korean. The author attempts to make a comprehensive analysis of existing studies of sound symbolism in the Korean language. Models of onomatopoeic words were analyzed, and types of words from each class provided.
Keywords: onomatopoeia, sound-imitating words, image-imitating words, Korean language.
The Korean language is extremely interesting from the viewpoint of studying its onomatopoeic lexis. In theoretical respect, this lexical layer draws attention due to existence of a number of features that place it into a separate lexical class; at the same time, it is far from being limited by words signifying imitation of sounds in extra-linguistic reality, also including lingual depiction of visual and other sensory perceptions, mechanical effects, dynamic conditions, psychological and other characteristics of the human being.
Modern Korean language study considers onomatopoeic lexis within the framework of the notion of sound-imitating words [6, 179]. The lexis of this type is exceptionally widely represented in the Korean language, and for the time being, it has not been subjected to a detailed study by the Korean language researchers.
It is fair to say that situation in modern Korean linguistics proves the lack of clearly defined criteria for separation of onomatopoeic lexicon. One of the vivid examples of that is the experts' inconsistency when selecting particular Korean onomatopoeias and including them to the register of onomatopoeia vocabularies.
Matters related to the nature and principles of onomatopoeic lexis functioning in the Korean language have been partially studied in works by Korean linguists [9; 7] and by foreign Korean language researchers [1; 4; 5; 6]. Occasionally, these matters were studied in the former Soviet Union as well [2; 3]. Problems related to the functioning of Korean onomatopoeias have been studied, along with other matters, in light of their role in communication of Koreans and participation in the formation of especially stable combinations at the lexical level.
Separate works were devoted to the study of Korean ono-matopes. These works deal with their pragmatic aspect and functioning [5], structural [1], phonetic and semantic particularities [6], and search of equivalents when translated in foreign languages [8].
Inside the integral category of onomatopoeic lexicon, the Korean language has two semantic groups: image-imitating words () that imitate the object's movement and appearance, and sound-imitating words ( ° ) that imitate sounds emitted by humans, animals, birds, etc. Both categories are represented in the Korean language exceptionally widely, but for the time being, have not been subjected to a detailed study even in the Korean language studies. Information available from certain linguists on this subject is somewhat patchy and cannot fully compensate the absence of a specialized study.
The difference between sound imitating and image-creating words in the Korean language is as follows: image-imitating words imitate the object's movement or appearance, such as, for example: i#0| ^
aa^' (literally: stars were shining in the night sky, where the image-imitating word ^W^W imitates the twinkle or shining of stars), or: 3 H|#H|
S s^' (literally: that man was drunk and walked wobbly, where H imitates and acoustically conveys the move-
ments of an unsteady walk of a drunk man). The other group of onomatopoeic lexis is composed of sound-imitating words that imitate sounds emitted by humans, animals, birds, objects of inanimate nature, etc. For example, §o0 □ Saa Mi^ (literally: brother
got sick and had a heavy, gruff cough all night long, where the sound imitating word conveys heavy, gruff cough).
