CC BY
6
УДК 81-112
В. Б. Анисимова
аспирант каф. грамматики и истории
английского языка факультета английского языка МГЛУ;
e-maiL: anisimovamsLu@gmaiL.com
РЕПРЕЗЕНТАЦИЯ КОНЦЕПТА «ОТНОШЕНИЕ» В АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ (диахронный аспект)
В статье рассматриваются диахронные преобразования концепта «отношение» в английском языке с позднедревнеанглийского по классический новоанглийский период. На фоне ослабления морфологического компонента гештальт-структур, репрезентирующих этот концепт, наблюдается усиление их синтаксического и лексического компонентов. Прослеживается связь между изменениями в репрезентации концепта «отношение» и диахронными преобразованиями в лексикосемантиче-ской и грамматической подсистемах английского языка.
Ключевые слова: концепт «отношение»; гештальт-структура; морфологический компонент; синтаксический компонент; лексический компонент; гештальт-анализ; семантический анализ.
V. B. Anisimova
Post-graduate student, Chair of Grammar
and History of EngLish, English Department, MSLU;
e-maiL: anisimovamsLu@gmaiL.com
DIACHRONIC REPRESENTATION OF THE CONCEPT 'RELATION' IN ENGLISH
The articLe discusses diachronic transformation of the concept 'ReLation' in the EngLish Language over five historicaL periods from Late OLd EngLish to CLassicaL New EngLish. Evidence is provided of intensification of the syntactic and LexicaL component of gestaLt structures verbaLizing the concept 'ReLation' whiLe the morphoLogicaL component is weakened. CorreLation is estabLished between changes in the representation of the concept and diachronic transformations within the LexicaL and the grammaticaL subsystems of the EngLish Language.
Key words: concept 'ReLation'; gestaLt structure; morphoLogicaL component; syntactic component; LexicaL component; gestaLt anaLysis; semantic anaLysis.
As is known, language gradually transforms itself over the centuries adapting to the needs of the times [Aitchinson 2001]. Diachronic approach to cognitive linguistics makes it possible to expand the studies in conceptual
analysis to historical explorations and get a better and more prolific view of the content and structure of a concept [Кузнецов 2007; Сорокина 2012].
Diacronic conceptology is a fairly new branch of cognitive linguistics. The most prominent research in this sphere belongs to Russian scholars of the Tambov school of linguistics (N. N. Boldyrev, N. A. Besedina, L. A. Furs) and Moscow State Linguistic University (T. S. Sorokina, E. V. Sinitsina). Their research provides methodological basis for further investigation, namely, for reconstructing a concept diachronically, which is attempted here.
Our goal is to observe the diachronic transformations in the representation of the concept "Relation" from Old English to Classical New English. The subject matter of the present investigation is historical changes of the content and structure of the concept "Relation" during Late Old English, Early Middle English, Late Middle English, Early New English and Classical New English periods (the periodization adopted from [Rastorguyeva 1983]). The objects of our analysis are language representations of the concept "Relation" and its subconcepts (a noun phrase and a verb-noun phrase). The methods used are functional semantic analysis, conceptual analysis, gestalt analysis, random selection and frequency distribution.
To pursue the goal, priority is given to functional linguistics, cognitive semantics and diachronic conceptology.
The fundamentals of our investigation perspective are as follows.
1. The main methodological principles that we adhere to in our investigation are functionalism and cognitivism (Functional Grammar and Conceptual Analysis).
2. The human conceptual system includes a variety of concepts: from concepts of physical objects to linguistic grammatical concepts [Болдырев 2016]. Lexical conceptualization creates structures of extralinguistic knowledge. Syntactic and morphological conceptualization results in linguistic knowledge structures. Grammatically represented concepts belong to the conceptual level as units of linguistic knowledge and are the basis for grammatical (morphological and syntactic) categories objectivized as distinctive grammatical meanings.
3. The dynamic character of grammatically represented concepts is determined by changes in the content and structure of grammatical language means, caused by diachronic factors.
4. Grammatical concepts are viewed as gestalts as they are formed of most abstract and generalized meanings (as their components) and have a three-dimensional (lexical, morphological, syntactic) representation.
5. The concept 'Relation' is a grammatical concept, a gestalt linguistic representation of knowledge.
6. Functional grammatical description is based on the assumption that grammatical units function as interface of different grammatical levels and presuppose two perspectives of analysis: from form to function and from function to form. Functions as viewed teleologically can coincide with the meanings of grammatical forms.
7. Semantic functions (SF) are elements of grammatical semantics derived from the combined meanings of grammatical forms, form words, syntactic structures, and lexico-grammatical classes of words. As the result of the survey of Old English, Middle English and New English texts, 75 SFs are revealed, diversely typical of different periods.
8. We introduce the notion of gestalt function (GF) [Сорокина 2014]. GFs are amalgamations of SFs. GFs are most abstract and generalized meanings objectivized lexically, morphologically and syntactically, and perceived holistically. They form the content of the concept "Relation" as its conceptual components. By our analysis, the GFs are: Objective, Subjective, Attributive, Attributive-Objective, Attributive-Subjective, and Informative Compensation.
9. Structurally, the concept "Relation" is divided into two subconcepts: the subconcept of Object-Object relation and the subconcept of Action-Object relation represented by noun phrases and verb-noun phrases respectively.
As well as in Modern English, the predominant means of expressing the O-O and A-O subconcepts in Old English were a nominal phrase (N+N) and a verb phrase (V+N) respectively. The history of both is connected first and foremost with the development of the case system. As proved by many scholars [Campbell 1959; Baugh, Cable 2002 et al], the collapse of the four-case system in English has to a large degree predetermined its type as a largely analytical language.
The invariant Nom/Acc/Dat/Gen case scheme in Old English was semantically polyfunctional. In spite of the weakening of case inflexions and the growing homonymity of forms, the four-case system had been steadily preserved until the end of the OE period. In was characterized
by variability of cases in the same function, i.e. Acc/Gen and Acc/Dat as direct objects with some lexical groups of verbs [Van Kemenade 1987].
In EME, a well-pronounced rise of homonymous case forms is registered. Through the homonymy of Nom/Acc and later Dat, the Common case arises, and the two-case system of Common and Genitive is established. The loss of case inflexions was accompanied by the growth and diversification of prepositions used with the Common case to render different meanings [Davidse 1996].
Alongside this, the collision of Dative and Accusative results in their synonymy in the sphere of objective relations. The functional similarity of these cases and their further overlapping favoured the reinterpretation of the former Dative as a direct object to the governing verb, which led to its replacement by the Accusative case. The loss of Acc/Dat distinction had an effect on the marking of the indirect object: from ME onwards, it was formally indistinguishable from the direct object, until another option developed - the 'to'-phrase [Ярцева 1961].
The Genitive case is gradually eliminated in the objective function in the verb phrase, and in ME is replaced by the non-prepositional Accusative case.
At the same time, verbs change their government. In OE, many verbs could collocate with several case forms without any considerable difference in their meaning. At the same time, there was no strict morphological opposition of transitive and intransitive verbs. Since ME, there appeared a number of verbs that could express both transitive and intransitive meanings due to the development of their semantics and their fixed syntactic position. Inflected case forms were replaced by a prepositional phrase in the function of an object.
The adnominal Genitive has always been a most universal means of syntactic relations between the components of the nominal phrase, and its various meanings represent deep semantic relations due to unlimited collocability of many lexical classes ofnouns. The quick rise ofprepositions in its turn led to the ousting of the inflected Genitive and its replacement by an 'of'-phrase.
In the long run, the semantic centre has shifted from case to preposition in both structures - the nominal and the verbal, and also to a lexical verb as the nucleus of the verb phrase [Историко-типологическая морфология германских языков 1977]. This could not but affect the semantics of
B. 5. AHueuMOBa
both means of expressing the O-O and A-O subconcepts of the concept "Relation".
Comparison of five periods (Late OE, Early ME, Late ME, Early NE, Classical NE) based on the analysis of nine written records (Late OE: Wulfstan's Homilies; Early ME: The Peterborough Chronicle and Layamon's Brut; Late ME: The Canterbury Tales by G. Chaucer; Early NE: Hamlet, Twelfth Night, and The Taming of the Shrew by W. Shakespeare; Classical NE: The Conquest of Granada and Marriage a la Mode by J. Dryden) brought us to the following results.
1. The attributive-objective semantics within the concept 'Relation' remains stable over the course of the five periods. The respective proportions of the A-O and the O-O subconcepts do not undergo evident change. Changes within a 9 % margin observed during the analysis can be ignored as natural fluctuations, since they lack consistency in terms of direction.
2. The diversity of the subconcepts in terms of semantic functions grows steadily over the course of history. The increase in diversity is more noticeable within the O-O subconcept. It can be explained by the fact that the change is mostly driven by the growing diversity of the Attributive GF that is more prominent within the O-O subconcept (the number of all Attributive SFs grows twofold: from 9 SFs in LOE to 18 in ENE). In the A-O subconcept, the number of Objective SFs remains unchanged throughout the analysed period (10 SFs).
3. In terms of frequency, the Objective GF is the predominant one, and also the one most actively growing in the A-O subconcept (from 43 % in EME to 68 % in ClNE). The relative frequency of occurrence of Attributive GFs remains unchanged in the O-O subconcept (89-90 %), but declines in the A-O subconcept (from 42 % in LOE to 30 % in ENE) due to the rapid growth of the Objective GF.
4. As to the language representation of the concept 'Relation' throughout the analysed period, the predominant means for the Object-Object subconcept are as follows (P stands for 'prepositional', NP for 'non-prepositional').
Late OE Early ME Late ME Early NE NE
Attributive-Objective NP P P P P
Attributive P, NP P, NP P P P
Late OE Early ME Late ME Early NE NE
Attributive-Subjective NP NP NP NP P, NP
Informative Compensation NP NP P P P
Objective P - P P P
The predominant means for the Action-Object subconcept are as follows.
Late OE Early ME Late ME Early NE NE
Attributive-Objective P P P P P
Attributive P P, NP P P P
Attributive-Subjective NP P, NP P - P
Informative Compensation P NP NP NP P
Objective NP NP NP NP P, NP
Subjective NP NP P, NP P, NP -
In both subconcepts, the trend is towards using more prepositional forms to express RELATION. Initially relying heavily on non-prepositional case forms, by the NE period, most of the gestalt functions move to prepositional phrases as a means of expression, which is in line with the general direction of development of the English grammatical system.
5. The number of prepositions discovered remains relatively stable through all the periods under analysis except Early ME. The rise in the number of prepositions can be attributed to the fact that the two texts that were used for the analysis of the period belong to different centuries and dialects, and, therefore, display a higher degree of variation in the use of prepositions. Further investigation can reveal semantic changes and specification of prepositions in substantive phrase and verb-noun phrase in course of history.
6. The Attributive functions remain the most frequent over the five periods in the O-O subconcept. However, in the A-O subconcept, while the Objective function grows steadily, the Attributive function loses its volume. It is important to point out that the concept 'Relation' is mostly influenced by the A-O subconcept due to its predominant position within the concept.
7. It may therefore be concluded that the concept 'Relation' preserves its basic structure and composition, whereas its subconcepts undergo qualitative and quantitative changes: redistribution of the frequency of GFs, their composition (SFs), and their language representation.
If we view language as an information code, we have to acknowledge, as I. V. Shaposhnikova writes, that the major portion of information in the structure of the language system is carried by lexemes that are functionally organized in the lexical subsystem. This information field is joined with an operational (formal) code, i.e. the grammatical subsystem [Шапошникова 1999].
Structural historical changes in the lexical subsystem of a language may also affect the grammatical subsystem. The lexical subsystem of the English language underwent cardinal qualitative and quantitative changes. These changes reflects a strong influence of an external factor (in particular, a rapid growth of the number of elements of actual reality that needed nomination, as well as foreign-language influence). At the same time, the conceptual sphere of the English language preserves its initial cluster of categories at the basic level. However, with the adaptation of English to the influence of an external factor (Scandinavian and French) a substantial volume of the Germanic lexical units was lost. The quantitative shift is compensated through:
1) enhancement of the functional load of the remaining Anglo-Saxon lexical units accompanied by the amplification of their semantic structure (polysemy, narrowing or expansion of meaning, etc.). Moreover, there develops a microsystem of words with a broad meaning that carry an increased functional load and have broader collocability;
2) intensive replenishment of the Germanic lexical basis with Scandinavian borrowings that blended seamlessly into the typological transformation;
3) assimilation of French borrowings to the Germanic core.
When changes in the semantic structure of a word begin to influence its collocability and are recorded in syntagmatics, new associative links appear at the textual level [Шапошникова 1999, p. 134].
As for the grammatical subsystem of the information code, changes in the morphological structure of the English language (i.e. in form-building) reflect on the syntax which plays a growing part in the expression of the Action-Object relation in the course of language development. The predominant syntactic pattern here is the verb-noun (verb-object) phrase. In general, whereas in the OE period the predominant means of expressing relations between phrase components were coordination and government, by NE, adjunction and prepositional binding come to the forefront. With the transition from a two-case system, a great number of verbs, that used to govern nouns in various cases and with various prepositions in a verb-object phrase in OE, switched to a non-prepositional construction with a noun in the Common case. At the same time, the number of prepositions and their meanings grows, new, more abstract meanings of prepositions are developed. Prepositional patterns become principal means of expressing syntactic relations between a verb and a noun. Later on, the meanings of prepositions narrow down and become more specified to render individual grammatical relations.
Transformation of the system of transitive / intransitive verbs begins to play an important part in the verb-object construction. Whereas in OE transitivity / intransitivity was a semantic and morphological feature of the verb itself, after the decay of verb government, a number of former intransitive verbs began to collocate with a non-prepositional object, and a number of verbs that used to be transitive became intransitive. By the NE period, transition to the syntactic expression of this category occurs, and postpositive adjunction becomes the principal means of connection between a verb and an object. According to V. N. Yartseva [Ярцева 1961, p. 174], construal of the verb-object phrase requires consideration of the lexicosemantic meanings of the head of the phrase, i.e. the verb. During the reorganization of the grammatical subsystem of the English language there occurred fusion of two verbs into one; combining of two verbs with different meanings; fusion of two meanings in the form of one of the verbs; formation of new verbs through conversion; mixture of strong and weak verbs; appearance of prepositions that can change the semantics of the verb; loss of verb prefixation. Finally, acquisition of a broad meaning by a range of vernacular verbs also testifies to the shift in the lexical meaning of the verb (in particular, in case of sematic idiomatization of a whole phrase). At the same time, the direction of the historical development of
the verb-object phrase is determined to a great extent by the character of the words that serve as the object [Ярцева 1961, p. 190].
As the result of the lexical and syntactic changes listed above, the verb-object construction (both prepositional and non-prepositional) becomes 'one of the most frequent patterns of the English language' [Ярцева 1961, p. 185].
Based on the above, we draw several conclusions as to the character of gestalt perception of structures representing the Action-Object subconcept:
1) diachronic changes in the lexicosemantic and the grammatical subsystems of the information code of English are reflected in the salience of structural components in the process of gestalt perception of a verb-noun phrase;
2) with the loss of the morphological component that played a major role in the gestalt perception of the verb-noun phrase in OE, the role of the central components for the A-O subconcept in the NE period is overtaken by the syntactic and the lexical component in their mutual connection and interdependence;
3) the salience of the lexical component is determined by taking into account all the three lexical components of the verb-object structure: the verb itself as head of the phrase, the noun used as the object, and the preposition. The intensification of the lexical component occurs mainly due to qualitative and quantitative changes of the lexical verb, and to a smaller extent due to qualitative and quantitative changes of the lexical semantics of the noun and the preposition.
The predominant syntactic pattern for the Object-Object relations is the nominal phrase. Unlike in the verb-noun construction, syntactic changes in the nominal phrase are less drastic. This is the result of the loss of the syntagmatic means of expressing case differentiation (coordination between the noun and pronouns, adjectives, and the developing article). In the OE period, preposition is mainly occupied by a noun in the Genitive case (postposition is by far less frequent). The semantics of the nominal phrase was determined by a broad collocability of various lexical classes of nouns. In the ME period, a new means of expressing prepositive attribute arises: nouns in the Common case. At the same time, the postpositive attribute spreads, expressed by a prepositional noun phrase. This is the result of the establishment of a fixed word order in the attributive phrase, as well as
a semantic shift in meanings of prepositions: development of a specified usage, new prepositions, and semantic mutation of prepositions.
Thus, diachronic changes in structures representing the O-O subconcept, in view of the loss of the morphological component (except the Genitive case) and relatively insignificant changes in syntax, result in the salience of the lexical component of the structure, largely due to qualitative changes in the lexis of both nouns and qualitative-quantitative changes in the system of prepositions. As a result, the lexical component becomes the key factor in the gestalt perception of structures representing the O-O subconcept.
The question arises what factors are responsible for the above transformation in the general semantics of the linguistic concept 'Relation', and whether it is connected to the changes in the linguistic worldview in the section of the information code that is the object of the present study.
As determined above, the growth of representation of the objective semantics happens mainly in the A-O subconcept, whereas the share of the attributive semantics remains relatively stable in the O-O subconcept and decreases in A-O. In general, the shares of the A-O and the O-O subconcepts within the concept 'Relation' do not change from OE to NE. Therefore, historical changes in the content of the concept 'Relation' occur due to internal transformations within the subconcepts, i.e. the growth of the objective semantics and the reduction of the attributive semantics in the A-O subconcept.
The redistribution of the attributive and objective semantics in the A-O subconcept occurs due to the following reasons:
1) appearance of new transitive verbs. The range of verbs that can take a direct object grew significantly by the NE period compared to the OE period.
2) shift of a number of intransitive verbs into transitive verbs;
3) growth of the role of the verb as the core of the verb-noun structure. In OE, the Dative and the Accusative case of the noun expressed a wide range of adverbial meanings (spatial, temporal, etc.). The prepositional and the non-prepositional uses of these cases varied. The decay of Dat and Acc was happening alongside the redistribution of functions between the bare case and the prepositional structure. By the NE period, the adverbial semantics is transferred from the case form to the preposition and the lexical meaning of the verb that constitutes the core of the verb-noun
structure [Историко-типологическая морфология германских языков 1977, p. 203-204].
At the same time, the internal semantics (the number of SFs) of both the Attributive and the Objective gestalt functions does not change.
As a result, new verbs and prepositions seem to 'appropriate' the objective semantics, reducing the share of the attributive semantics in the A-O subconcept.
For the O-O subconcept, the predominant role of the Attributive gestalt functions is preserved, but their internal semantics undergoes considerable amplification (growth of the number of SFs), due to both the appearance of new nouns, and of new prepositions, as well as semantic mutation of old prepositions.
The main results of our investigation are as follows:
1. The survey of the numerical distribution of the representation of the concept "Relation" and its subconcepts during the historical period from LOE to Classical NE showed that though the proportion of the subconcepts in the overall semantics of the concept "Relation" is preserved, the diachronic changes occur due to internal transformations within the subconceps: the growth of the objective semantics and the reduction of the attributive (adverbial) semantics in the A-O subconcept. Linguistically it is evidenced by the growing frequency of the verb-noun structure representing this subconcept. Historically, it can be accounted for by reorganization of the system of transitivity/intransitivity of the verb in English.
At the same time, the attributive (adverbial) semantics is transferred from the case form to the preposition and the lexical meaning of the verb. As a result, the verb-noun structures that used to render attributive (adverbial) meaning acquire objective meaning. So, the redistribution of attributive and objective semantics in the A-O subconcept take place due to the appearance of new transitive verbs, the shift of intransitive verbs into transitive and the intensification of the role of the verb as core of the verb-noun structure.
Alongside this, the internal semantics (the number of semantic functions) of both objective and attributive gestalt functions does not cardinally change.
2. In the O-O subconcept the predominant role of attributive GFs is preserved, but their internal semantics undergoes amplification and specification (increase of the number of SFs amalgamated into GFs) due
to both the appearance of new nouns and prepositions (as well as semantic mutation of old prespositions) as constituents of the nominal phrase representing this subconcept.
3. The diachronic changes in the lexicosemantic and grammatical subsystems of the English language affect the salience of the structural components in the process of the gestalt perception of the nominal phrase and the verb-noun phrase representing the concept "Relation". Thus, with the loss of a morphological component (case forms) which played a major role in the gestalt perception of the verb-noun phrase in OE, in NE salience markedness passes over to its syntactic and lexical components. The lexical component becomes central mainly due to qualitative and quantitative changes of the lexical verb and to a lesser extent due to qualitative and quantitative changes in the semantics of the noun and the preposition. The syntax of the verb-noun phrase is governed by verb-noun relations and plays an important role in the perception of the structure.
4. In the O-O subconcept the syntactic relations within the nominal phrase were originally determined by broad collocability of various classes of nouns, so the syntax of nominal phrases did not undergo drastic changes. At the same time the loss of the morphological component (except the Genitive case) and relatively insignificant syntactic changes result in the salience of the lexical component of the structure largely due to qualitative modification of both nouns and the prepositions. It is the lexical component that becomes the key factor in the gestalt perception of the representation of the O-O subconcept.
REFERENCES
Болдырев Н. Н. Когнитивные схемы языковой интерпретации // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики / Ин-т языкознания РАН и Тамбовский гос. университет им. Г. Р. Державина. 2016. № 4. С. 10-20. Историко-типологическая морфология германских языков / Академия наук
СССР. Институт языкознания. М. : Наука, 1977. 359 с. Кузнецов В. Г. Предмет и задачи диахронической сопоставительной концеп-тологии // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. № 2. Тамбов : Тамбов. гос. ун-т, 2007. С. 35-41. Сорокина Т. С. Диахроническая концептология: некоторые методики исследования // Грамматические исследования: когнитивно-коммуникативная лингвистика и современная лингводидактика. М. : ФГБОУ ВПО МГЛУ, 2012. С. 9-21. (Вестн. Моск. гос. лингвист. ун-та ; вып. 27 (660). Сер. Языкознание.)
Сорокина Т. С. Концепт «отношение» и языковая картина мира (опыт исторической интерпретации) // Лингвистика и лингводидактика в когнитивно-коммуникативном аспекте: грамматические исследования. М. : ФГБОУ ВПО МГЛУ, 2014. С. 9-20. (Вестн. Моск. гос. лингвист. ун-та ; вып. 27 (711). Сер. Языкознание.)
Шапошникова И. В. Системные диахронические изменения лексико-семанти-ческого кода английского языка в лингвоэтническом аспекте. Иркутск, ИГЛУ, 1999. 243 с.
Ярцева В. Н. Исторический синтаксис английского языка. М.-Л. : Изд-во Акад. наук СССР, 1961. 308 с.
Aitchinson J. Language Change: Progress or Decay. 3rd edn. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2001. 305 p.
Baugh A. C., Cable Th. A History of the English Language. 3rd edn. 5th edn. London : Routledge, 2002. 447 p.
Campbell A. Old English Grammar. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1959. 423 p.
Davidse K. Functional dimensions of the dative in English // W. van Belle & W. Langedonck (eds.). The Dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam : Benjamins, 1996. P. 289-338.
Kemenade A. van. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht : Foris, 1987. 249 p.
Rastorgueva T. A. A History of English. М. : Высшая школа, 1983. 347 p.
