International Journal of Applied and Basic Research. Language opposition Syntagmatic analysis of sentences

Modeling of systemic, categorical meanings of tense forms of a verb is possible by taking into account a number (or bundle) of differential semantic features that characterize the semantic structure of each of the tense forms in the system of oppositions established in relation to reference points. Structural methods of linguistic analysis, their development and improvement today make it possible to outline ways to solve this problem.

It is clear that it is impossible to talk about a system of meanings without recognizing the systemic and structural nature of language. Most linguists agree on reality and ontological essence language system. “The language system is objective, it exists before the linguist and independently of him,” writes A.A. Leontyev. A systematic approach to the study of linguistic phenomena is thus determined by the systemic qualities of the object itself. The systematic nature of language and linguistic phenomena, which are identified and tested by scientists through hypotheses and linguistic experiments, are not currently disputed in linguistics.

Systemic relationships imply opposition of elements, opposition of elements.

Soviet scientists made a great contribution to the development of the method of oppositional analysis: V.G. Admoni, V.N. Toporov, T.N. Moloshnaya, E.Y. Shendels, A.V. Bondarko, O.I. Moskalskaya and others.

The correlation and opposition of linguistic units based on a common categorical feature, the reduction of correlation in paradigmatics to oppositions led to the modeling of categorical meanings. Paradigmatic modeling allows you to model the systemic relationships of language, allows you to understand the relationships between phenomena in the language itself

On the other hand, oppositional analysis allows one to decompose meaning, including grammatical meaning, into components, semes, the smallest units of the content plan that are further indivisible for a given procedure.

V. Skalichka was one of the first to propose identifying such components. Seme analysis quickly gained recognition among linguists, since this method helps to formally and objectively determine the content of grammatical forms, like any linguistic unit. The development of formal means of determining the meaning (semantics) of linguistic units of any level is becoming today one of the main requirements for linguistic research, because “where there are no means of formalization, scope opens for all sorts of subjective constructions. Only in the presence of clear formal rules for establishing the identity of meaning is a guarantee against subjectivism.”

A very important theoretical property is the thesis about the neutralization of oppositions, in particular grammatical ones. Neutralization of grammatical oppositions is actualized in the conditions of language use. Neutralization of grammatical opposition is understood as the linguistic transfer of a grammatical form into an unfamiliar sphere of use, in which it loses its basic grammatical meaning and acquires a different one, characteristic of another grammatical form.

The phenomena of neutralization of grammatical oppositions were considered by O.I. Moskalskaya, E.I. Schendels.

The oppositional method of analyzing grammatical meanings allows us to reveal their correlation and comparability with each other.

Opposition as a specific type of paradigmatic relations (correlations) is sometimes contrasted with contrast as a special type of syntagmatic relations (relations).

The set of oppositions into which a given unit enters plays a decisive role for the identification (paradigmatic definition) of this unit, which was already clearly recognized by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure.

Thus, opposition presupposes the decomposability of opposed units into partly common (“grounds for comparison”), partly different elements.

The concept of opposition was first developed in the Prague phonological concept linguistic school, which was developed by R.O. Jacobson in the 1930s.

The first experience in systematizing types of oppositions belongs to Trubetskoy (1936), who classified them according to three criteria:

In relation to this opposition to the entire system of oppositions (including in terms of “dimension” and “occurrence”),

In relation to members of the opposition,

According to the volume of the semantic-distinguishing power of the opposition.

The opposition method has been successfully used when considering grammatical phenomena.

Oppositions are always oppositions, but an opposition is grammatical only if there is opposition to grammar in at least two forms. Grammatical oppositions can be binomial or polynomial. Members of the opposition are called counter-members and the grammatical study of O.I. Moskalskaya is built entirely on the oppositional method, in which the author structures polynomial oppositions into binomial ones and reveals the features of their grammatical meaning.

Let us consider the oppositional relations of presence in the system of tense forms:

1) Prasens<->Future

At the basis of this grammatical opposition we have the opposition of present as a temporary form, denoting an action that is relevant at the moment of speech and futurum, as an action that occurs after the moment of speech. The basis for such a construction of this opposition is the correlation of the indicated grammatical forms to the moment of the action. Present and futurum are opposite terms in relation to the relevance of the action at the time of speech.

Another common property for present and futurum is that in paradigmatic meanings these forms do not have synonymous variants. This means that the paradigm does not contain any other tense forms that can express the action that is relevant at the moment of speech, which confirms the absence of a paradigmatic synonym for present.

Named two general properties and the contrast in the time of the action allow us to consider present and futurum as a binary opposition.

2) Prasens<->Prateritum

The main thing for this opposition is also the correlation with the moment of speech. Present, as stated above, has the meaning of the action taking place at the moment of speech. The preterite is used to express an action taking place before the moment of speech. Their opposition is beyond doubt.

3) Prasens<->Perfect

This opposition has a different temporary nature. The perfect is consistent with the action in the present, expressing some action that precedes the present, revealing relative opposition.

To confirm the thesis of the universal polysemy of presence, we rely on the neutralization of the described oppositions. If present is transferred to the sphere of use of futurum, then opposition is present<->futurum is neutralized and present becomes a syntagmatic synonym for futurum and is defined as “futural” present (z.B. Morgen beende ich die Arbeit fruher.- Tomorrow I will finish work earlier.). If the present is included in the zone of use of the preterite, we obtain the neutralization of the opposition present<->preterite, which realizes the syntagmatic synonymy of present and preterite. This use of the present is regulated as praesens historicum ( z.B. Gestern gehe ich durch die Stra?e und begegne meiner Schulfreundin.- Yesterday I was walking down the street and met my school friend).

Let's consider the relationship between present and perfect in statements like:

1) Ich hore, du willst verreisen. (Ich habe gehort, du willst verreisen.)- I heard that you are leaving.

2) Er fuhlt, sie will ihm alles verzeihen. (Er hat gefuhlt, sie will ihm alles verzeihen.)- He felt that she would forgive him everything.

It becomes possible to establish the neutralization of the present-perfect opposition. Present is transposed into the sphere of use of the perfect and becomes a syntagmatic synonym for the perfect. Thus, as a result of the neutralization of the listed oppositions, the polysemy of present is confirmed, capable of expressing an action occurring before the moment of speech - “historical” present, present synonymous with the perfect, as well as an action occurring after the moment of speech - futural present.

It should be noted that Prasens pairs<->Plusquamperfekt, Prasens<->Futurum II - are not oppositional.

1

The essence of oppositional analysis in relation to information models and information units is revealed. The principles of oppositional analysis in linguistics are shown. The principles of opposition analysis in computer science are shown. Shown. that in linguistics oppositional analysis is qualitative analysis. It is shown that in computer science oppositional analysis is a quantitative analysis. It is shown that the basis of oppositional analysis is dichotomous division. Partial dichotomous division can lead to oppositional elements. Necessary and sufficient conditions for obtaining oppositional pairs based on dichotomous division are shown. The disadvantage of oppositional pairs in the field of information technology is the simplification of semantic structures. It is recommended to develop oppositional analysis in combination with set-theoretic models.

information models

linguistics

information Technology

opposition analysis

opposition variables

opposition couples

dichotomous division

qualitative analysis

quantitative analysis

1. Slobodskaya Yu.V. Methods of transmitting someone else’s speech: oppositional analysis // Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. – 2010. – No. 3. – P. 139–143.

2. Nosova E.A. Press release as an object of oppositional analysis // in collection. Speech. Speech activity. Text. – Taganrog: TGPI, 2012. – P. 323–327.

3. Kudzh S.A., Tsvetkov V.Ya. Systematic approach to dissertation research // Perspectives of science and education. – 2014. – No. 3. – P. 26–32.

4. Mayorov A.A. System geographic information analysis // Perspectives of science and education. – 2014. – No. 4. – P. 38–43.

5. Ozhereleva T.A. Complexity of information resources // Modern high technology. – 2014. – No. 4. – P. 80–85.

6. Tsvetkov V.Ya. Some aspects of text analysis // Modern high technology. – 2008. – No. 6. – P. 84–85.

7. Solovyov I.V. General principles management of a complex organizational and technical system // Perspectives of science and education. - 2014. – No. 2. – P. 21–27.

8. Lobanov A. A. Innovation Study Development in the Field of Surveying Production // European Journal of Economic Studies. – 2013. – Vol. (6). – No. 4. - R. 198–203.

9. Tsvetkov V.Ya. Using oppositional variables to analyze the quality of educational services // Modern science-intensive technologies. – 2008. – No. 1 – P. 62–64.

10. Ozhereleva T.A. Development of testing methods // Perspectives of science and education. - 2013. – No. 6. – P. 20–25.

11. Mayorov A.A. Training during advanced training in the field of Earth sciences // Perspectives of science and education. - 2014. – No. 2. – P. 70–76.

12. Tsvetkov V.Ya. Framework of Correlative Analysis // European Researcher. – 2012. – Vol. (23). – No. 6-1. – R. 839–844.

13. Tsvetkov V. Ya. Language of computer science // Advances in modern natural science. – 2014. – No. 7. – pp. 129–133.

14. Bolbakov R.G. Analysis of cognition in science and education // Perspectives of science and education. – 2014. – No. 4. – pp. 15–19.

15. Eliseeva A.G. Semantic analysis of linguistic units: contrasted on the basis of action-state. – Publishing house Moscow. University, 1977.

16. Newman L. Analysis of qualitative data // Sociological research. – 1998. – No. 12. – pp. 101–114.

17. New philosophical encyclopedia // iph.ras.ru

18. Tsvetkov V.Ya. Dichotomous Systemic Analysis. Life Science Journal. – 2014. - No. 11(6). – R. 586–590.

19. Elsukov P.Yu. Formation of a structural model for energy saving management // Bulletin of MSTU MIREA. - 2014 – No. 3 (4) – P. 135–145.

20. Tymchenko E.V. Structuring of educational information resources // Educational management: theory and practice – 2014. – No. 3. (15) – pp. 181–188.

21. Solovyov I.V. Complex organizational and technical system as a tool for studying artificial anthropogenic systems // Remote and virtual training. – 2014. – No. 1. – P. 5–23

22. Tsvetkov V.Ya. Opposition Variables as a Tool of Qualitative Analysis // World Applied Sciences Journal. - 2014. – 30 (11). – R. 1703–1706.

For a long time, oppositional analysis has been used in linguistics to analyze speech texts. For example, the application of oppositional analysis to the category of “other people’s speech” allows oppositions to more clearly and structuredly display the essence of a given linguistic phenomenon in relation to methods of transmitting someone else’s utterance. The work reveals a mechanism that reveals the relationship of signs of contrasted phenomena, for which the method of selection is used extreme points and transitivity scale. This method is also used in the field of systems research. The work uses dichotomous analysis, which is essentially oppositional to build the structure of an object. This approach allows you to evaluate complexity by the structure of the object. Oppositional analysis led to the concept of oppositional variables in linguistics, management, logistics in education during correlative analysis, and artificial languages, in the theory of knowledge, etc. This suggests that oppositional analysis has significantly expanded its scope, primarily due to oppositional variables .

The main application of opposition variables remains semantics and qualitative analysis. However, the development of opposition analysis in the information sciences is of interest.

Dichotomous approach as the basis of oppositional analysis

Oppositional analysis is a development of the dichotomous approach. Dichotomy is interpreted as a division into two. This term has two meanings: as a property and as a process or method. As a property, dichotomy means bifurcation or division. The presence of duality means dichotomy. As a method, dichotomy refers to the process of sequentially dividing an object of study into two parts that are not related to each other.

In classification, dichotomy is the process of logical division of a class into subclasses, which consists in the fact that the dividing concept is completely divided into two mutually exclusive concepts. This is a stronger condition than simply dividing in two.

Therefore, there is every reason to talk about a complete dichotomy and a partial dichotomy. From a linguistic point of view, a complete dichotomy preserves the scope of the concept; from a semantic point of view, it preserves all the essential features of division; from the point of view of a systems approach, it preserves system features. From these positions, as a property, dichotomy means duality and systemic integrity. This approach allows us to create structural model, assess complexity or structure information resources.

Part of the dichotomy is separation. It may not preserve the scope of the concept or exclude some features. Its main goal is to study two important features. It is used in the study of categorical pairs, such as: “necessary - free”, “internal - external”, “information needs - material and energy needs”, etc. From these positions, as a property, dichotomy means only duality and not necessarily antagonism.

The advantage of dichotomy is simplicity. With a complete dichotomy, a person deals with only two classes, which exhaust the scope of the divisible concept. If the division object O is completely divided into two classes a and b, then this is very convenient. In this case, one of the specific differences is the very basis of division a, and the other is its logical complement b.

Example: “man” → “men”; "women". O - man, a - men, b - women. This division occurs within one category. Here we have the “whole” and the results of its division: the base and the logical complement.

However, when dividing the scope of a concept using the negation “not” into two contradictory concepts, the part of it (logical complement) to which the particle “not” refers may be uncertain. Example: “furniture” → “table” and “Not a table.” O - furniture, a - table. Part not a includes objects of other categories, for example: animal, person, car, plane, planet Earth. Therefore, when dividing using negation, it is necessary to introduce an additional condition limiting the area of ​​negation.

A special place in dichotomous division is occupied by opposition variables that contradict each other. For example, “advantages - disadvantages”, “profit - losses”, “acceleration - deceleration”, etc. Often opposition variables show extreme sides and exclude intermediate values. In this case we're talking about about partial dichotomous division, since one oppositional variable is not a complete complement of the other to the whole and the scope of the concept decreases.

Methodology

The technique of oppositional analysis is based on identifying the “extreme” points of the values ​​of oppositional variables that form the opposition, between which intermediate values ​​are located. A situation is possible (binary values) when there are no intermediate values. For example, 0 and 1 in the binary system. These situations are most convenient for analysis, but in practice intermediate values ​​often occur.

If we use the experience of linguistics and transfer it with generalization to the field of information technology, then briefly the essence of oppositional analysis will be reduced to the following principles. Subopposition of information units is understood as a semantically significant difference between information units that correspond to a common object or phenomenon. We can call this a dichotomy of information units with semantically opposite meanings or meanings that deny simultaneous existence.

We can talk about two members of the opposition as variables, we can talk about the opposition system. In relation to information sciences, we will have in mind information semantic units, for which issues of oppositional analysis can be considered.

The first experience in systematizing types of oppositions belongs to N.S. Trubetskoy (1936), later the theory of oppositions was applied in grammar when considering morphological and syntactic categories. However, we will turn to the work of Yu.V. Solodkina, which provides an analysis of this approach from modern positions. N.S. Trubetskoy distinguished oppositions according to three characteristics: in relation to the given opposition to the entire system of oppositions; in relation to members of the opposition; by the volume of meaning differentiation.

In relation to this opposition to the entire system of oppositions, one-dimensional and multidimensional oppositions and isolated and proportional oppositions are distinguished.

In terms of dimension, an opposition can be one-dimensional, if the set of features common to both of its members is no longer inherent in any other member of the system, or multidimensional, if the basis for comparing two members of the opposition extends to other members of the same system;

In terms of occurrence, the opposition can be isolated (members are located
in a relationship that is not found in any other opposition) or proportional (the relationship between members of one opposition is identical to the relationship between members of another opposition);

In relation between members of the opposition, they distinguish: privative opposition, when one member differs from the other by the presence or absence of a distinctive feature; gradual opposition, when members differ from each other in different degrees of manifestation of the same characteristic; equipollent opposition, when the members are logically equal;

In terms of the volume of semantically distinctive power, the opposition can be constant (the action of the distinctive feature is not limited, and two units differ in all possible positions) or neutralized (in some positions the feature loses its significance).

Elements combined with each other in opposition must have two types of characteristics: general and specific. This follows from the dichotomous division. Dichotomy refers to a common object or phenomenon O which is divided into two parts a and b. In this case, the parts can be oppositional or complementary. General characteristics reflect the relationship of divisible parts with the whole. Particular characteristics when dichotomously divided into parts can be similar and distinctive. If, when dividing, the parts have only distinctive features, then this may indicate opposition, but this is not a sufficient basis for opposition.

If, when dividing a whole, the parts have only distinctive features and these features are antagonistic, then in this case we get oppositional elements. These elements can be opposition variables if they can take different meanings, remaining in opposition to each other.

When analyzing opposition, the environment in which the object of study is located plays an important role. For example, the oppositional pair “advantages - disadvantages”, depending on conditions and goals, can significantly change its characteristics. Advantages can turn into disadvantages, and disadvantages into advantages. This is especially typical for expert assessment, when one expert considers as disadvantages what another considers as advantages. Consequently, the information situation in which the object is located is a factor influencing the value of information variables and the result of the analysis.

The main elements in the field of information technology for which oppositional analysis is possible are semantic information units. In the field of education, opposition variables are widely used in testing knowledge, in particular in computer testing. The Crowder test method is widely known, which is based on partial dichotomy and is used to assess knowledge. In the model version, the opposition is represented by a binary pair 0, 1. This makes it possible to process large amounts of information on a computer that an individual cannot process.

Another difference between the information approach and the classical linguistic approach is that in linguistics oppositional analysis is a type of qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis is associated with an expert, that is, it contains an element of subjectivity. In the field of information technology, it is possible to introduce quantitative criteria. This makes it possible for quantitative assessments to be carried out by different specialists, regardless of their biases and habits. This increases the independence and objectivity of the assessment.

A significant difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis can be seen in the example of coding. In quantitative research, coding practically does not include semantic procedures and is based on the equivalent transformation of one type of information into another. In quantitative research, coding is a technical routine procedure typically performed by operations personnel or a technical device. From the point of view of information technology, this procedure means pulse-code modulation, that is, the replacement of an analog code with a discrete one with full preservation of information content and increased noise immunity. At the same time, there is repeatability and reproducibility of the result by different specialists. The level of qualification does not play a significant role in obtaining the result.

In qualitative research, coding serves semantic and transformative functions and has a different meaning. From the point of view of information technology, this procedure means entering additional information subjectively by the expert and the transformation of this information is also subjective. At the same time, there is no repeatability and reproducibility of the result by different specialists. The level of qualification plays a significant role in obtaining the result.

Opposition variables, if they can be introduced, create the possibility of moving to quantitative methods of analysis. Information models and information units are more structured and formalized objects in comparison with linguistic objects and units. This makes it possible to increase the effectiveness of opposition analysis in the field of information models and information units.

Conclusion

Oppositional analysis is based on the triad: object; first opposition; second opposition. Opposition analysis is a new analysis tool in the field of information technology and in the field of artificial intelligence. In the field of information technology, it is most often based on the use of binary opposition variables. This allows you to process large amounts of information and conduct objective analysis. The disadvantage of the approach is that when analyzing complex semantic structures, it simplifies the content and excludes semantic analysis of complex models or options. In particular, when analyzing the semantic environment, oppositional analysis gives way to set-theoretic models. Therefore, in our opinion, the development of oppositional analysis in combination with set-theoretic models is promising.

Bibliographic link

Ozhereleva T.A. OPPOSITION ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION MODELS // International Journal of Applied and basic research. – 2014. – No. 11-5. – pp. 746-749;
URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=6219 (access date: 07/16/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences" RECEPTION OF THE OPPOSITION. A research method based on: 1) contrast between language (paradigm) and speech (context); 2) recognition of the inequality of members of the opposition. These principles predetermine the methodology of oppositional analysis. Oppositional analysis, as a rule, is preceded by component analysis, aimed at identifying differential (distinctive) features of linguistic units. Then the actual oppositional analysis begins, which consists in the selection of categorical (invariant) differential features that are relevant (essential) for a given category. The next stage is to determine the unevenness of opposition members. One of the members of the opposition acts as a strong member (featured, marked), the second is a weak member of the opposition (without characteristic, unmarked). A strong member of the opposition signals a semantic feature and correlates the grammatical category with extra-systemic reality. The weak member of the opposition does not express the semantic feature explicitly, but can express it implicitly. R.O. Jacobson, analyzing the heifer-calf pair, considers the word “heifer” as a marked member of the opposition, always denoting a female, while the word “calf” can denote both a male and a female. The analysis of opposition as an unequal opposition led to the creation of the methodology of secondary functions, contextual analysis and neutralization. The third principle of oppositional analysis is taking into account the context: lack of expression meaningful attribute member of the opposition makes it dependent on the context, gives rise to its private meanings and secondary functions. Therefore, oppositional analysis begins with component analysis and ends with contextual analysis. The following rules are actually oppositional: 1) selection of differential characteristics; 2) unequal interpretation of signs. The use of the oppositional device led to the fact that the grammatical category itself was interpreted as a privative opposition. For example, Stelling considered a grammatical category as the opposition of two and no more mutually exclusive series and groups of forms in meaning. R.O. Jakobson interpreted the entire system of the Russian verb as a set of binary privative oppositions. The case system of the Russian noun was also considered by him as a system of privative oppositions. He dichotomously divided all cases into privative oppositions, basing the division on the signs of volume, peripherality and direction. The oppositional hierarchy of features he obtained is most clearly presented in the table:

Cases
Signs I. p. V. p. D. p. T. p. P. p. R. p. Total
Volume
Periphery
Directionality -
-
- -
-
+ -
+
+ -
+
- +
+
- +
-
- 2
3
2
Total 0 1 2 1 2 1 7
The oppositional technique goes back to a more abstract level of analysis. In the narrow sense of the word, oppositional analysis is based on privative proportional opposition. Equivalent oppositions are used in logical-psychological and paradigmatic techniques. Gradual oppositions are associated with the use of the field technique.
ACCEPTANCE OF RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY. This is a method of research in which the antiquity of one fact is established in comparison with another. In the field of phonetic phenomena, the first change of back-linguals into sibilants in Slavic languages older than the first changes from back-lingual to sibilant: [ch] > [zh], [k] > [ch], [x] > [w] and [g] > [z], [k] > [ts], [x] > [ With]. The softening of velar consonants into sibilants is recognized as later.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONCEPTUAL FIELD. I. Trier's technique, which consists in the fact that in the center of the semantic field there is a concept - a semantic dominant, represented by a set of semantic features united by: 1) a general concept; 2) generic concept; 3) topic (subject relatedness). The presence of a multi-seminous component in the center makes it possible to deploy it in such a way that the semantic features are reduced and the analyzed unit is removed from the center. The extreme peripheral elements are removed to varying degrees from the set of features of the semantic dominant, as a result of which they acquire semantic certainty, characterized as the degree of semantic gravity and semantic distance. Varieties of conceptual field techniques: 1) word field technique; 2) reception of the lexical-grammatical field. When analyzing the word field, the semantic center is the meaning of the word, which acts as a set of semantic features of monosemes. At the same time, individual meanings of the word are examined: 1) shades; 2) lexical-semantic options; 3) communications of this word with other words; 4) individual meanings of words.
ACCEPTANCE OF FEATURE COMPARISON. A research method in which
the basis for comparison is chosen to be any phenomenon of a particular language, signs
this phenomenon.
ACCEPTANCE OF SEMANTIC VALENCE OF A WORD. The “semantic field” technique (Bedeutungsfeld or W. Porzig’s field), which studies semantic compatibility different parts speech. Among the methods for obtaining the semantic valence of a word, the most famous is the method of constant and variable context, developed by N.N. Amosova and used to study free and phraseological combinations of words, as well as the technique of semantic-syntactic distribution formulas, used mainly to study the semantics of the verb.
RECEPTION OF “WORDS AND THINGS” (Worter und Sachen). A technique based on the study of the meaning of a word in close connection with the realema (thing and concept) that the word names. At the same time, the meaning of the word is revealed through the description of realities, the properties of which are discovered and illustrated by examples of the use of the word. The “words and things” technique was first used in encyclopedic dictionaries, which is why it is also called the encyclopedic word learning technique. The term “reception of words and things” was proposed by R. Mehringer and G. Schuchardt for historical and social research. Later it began to be used in the study and description of vocabulary modern language, as well as in ethnographic research and explanatory dictionaries.
RECEPTION OF THEMATIC GROUPS. A method of studying vocabulary, with the help of which a set is selected based on one or another subject-thematic relevance
words, which is subject to special study. Thematic groups are compiled on the basis, first of all, of substantive vocabulary: 1) names of dwellings, buildings, settlements and reservoirs; 2) exoticism. Terminological vocabulary can be studied as large thematic groups. Lexemes combined into thematic groups, are studied using various methods: 1) the use of encyclopedic characteristics; 2) identification of meaning and component composition, 3) analysis of lexical-semantic groups; 4) selection of synonymous series. Thus, the subject-thematic grouping of words does not always end with a sociological one - one of the forms of external interpretation, but it can be interpreted in the lexical-semantic aspect, and therefore not an external, but an internal interpretation will be used, focused on the study of linguistic paradigms, fields and others
semantic groups.
ACCEPTANCE OF CHRONOLOGYZATION. A method of research in which linguistic facts receive absolute and relative temporal characteristics. In historical-comparative study, absolute chronology is dating - establishing the first fixation of the fact or phenomenon being studied. The discovery, publication, and comprehensive examination of written monuments, the creation of historical dictionaries and monographs are an indispensable condition for the accurate historical study of a particular language. In historical-comparative studies, the technique of relative chronology is also used. For example, analysis of the transition [e] > ["o"] shows that in the words flight, grandfather, father, first [b] disappeared and [ts] hardened, then the transition [e] > ["o"] occurred. These phenomena have different chronologies, i.e. relative.
LANGUAGE COMPARISON RECEPTION. A method of research in which the basis of comparison is one language.
TECHNIQUES OF EXTERNAL INTERPRETATION. Methods of activity aimed at studying linguistic units, divided into two types: 1) interpretation of linguistic units from the perspective of their connections with non-linguistic phenomena (sociological techniques, logical-psychological, articulatory-acoustic); 2) interpretation of linguistic units according to their connection with other units of language (techniques external to the units of the studied tier, but not beyond the boundaries of the language structure: techniques of cross-level interpretation; distributive methodology, revealing the features of the studied unit through its environment).
TECHNIQUES OF INTERNAL INTERPRETATION. Learning-oriented modes of inquiry internal structure linguistic units. Three types of methods of internal interpretation are distinguished: 1) methods of classification and systematics, aimed at identifying various groups, categories, classes of linguistic units; 2) paradigmatic techniques, including oppositional and semantic field techniques, as well as syntagmatic techniques, including positional ones, aimed at analyzing the structure of selected units and categories, their samples; 3) methods of transformation, including transformation methodology.
TECHNIQUES OF CLASSIFICATION AND SYSTEMATICS. Techniques of internal interpretation, in which the set of objects or phenomena being studied, based on similar or different characteristics, is divided into separate groups and subordinate sets - classes. In linguistics, classifications based on generic and dichotomous division of the scope of concepts are mainly used. When using methods of classification and systematics, along with the procedure for dividing concepts, the choice of the basis for such division is considered essential, i.e. a set of features that characterizes a generic concept, a general concept or a labeled member of a logical opposition. The set of features and coverage of language facts differs among different researchers, and therefore competing classifications are widespread in linguistics. From a logical point of view, classification must obey the rules of division of concepts. In linguistic classifications, in a number of cases these rules are not observed, so the classification technique often acts as a systematic technique without sufficient logical validity. However, the requirement to comply with logical rules is put forward in all schools of linguistic logicism, especially in logical-mathematical school.
TECHNIQUES OF CULTURAL-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION. Techniques determined by the connection between the history of a language and the history of a people. The main methods of cultural-historical interpretation: 1) sociological periodization of the history of the literary language; 2) establishing a connection between the history of literary and written language and the history of business writing and language fiction; 3) the technique of genre interpretation of lexical, syntactic and morphological phenomena of language; 4) reception of stylistic characteristics.
TECHNIQUES OF INTERLEVEL INTERPRETATION. Research methods in which units of an adjacent tier or smaller units of the same tier are used as units of linguistic analysis. In cross-level analysis, the properties of the phenomena being studied are looked at from the point of view of the adjacent tier, which reveals new features of the phenomena being studied and helps to establish cross-level connections. The most common techniques are the technique of morphological syntax and morphemic morphology.
PARADIGM TECHNIQUES AND PARADIGMATIC METHODOLOGY. Techniques widely used in the study of linguistic categories. In this case, linguistic phenomena are considered as components of a category, which is a set of linguistic units. A paradigm is understood as a model extracted from speech material, but not completely implemented and not used at the same time. Thus, the paradigmatic technique appears as one of the ways to model language. The paradigmatic technique was initially most fully developed as a method of morphological paradigms in the study of inflection and form formation. In this case, the paradigm was understood as a set of word forms of a given word or word forms of a given part of speech. The paradigmatic methodology is focused on a comprehensive study of the morphological pattern - its correspondence to the facts of the language, the actual composition of word forms, the structure of the paradigm itself and its components (word forms). From the point of view of the correspondence of the paradigm to the facts of language, its complexity/non-complexity (defectiveness), as well as the variability underlying linguistic redundancy are examined. At the same time, traditional linguistics offers an explanation of the reasons for the discrepancies between the model and its implementation. The paradigms themselves are interpreted as dynamic systems with different stability (productivity and activity). Understanding grammatical category as meaning, and language as paradigmatics led to the widespread use of paradigmatic techniques. Syntactic and lexical-semantic paradigms are distinguished, and techniques of semantic (lexicological) and syntactic paradigms arise accordingly. Phonological paradigms are created as a result of extrapolation of the reception of morphological paradigms. The universalization of the paradigmatic methodology led to its logical interpretation. On the one hand, it comes closer to the invariant methodology and analysis of metalanguage. On the other hand, the paradigmatic technique was used as a special case of oppositional analysis.
TRANSFORMATION TECHNIQUES. Methods of research based on an understanding of language as a process, as a dynamic structure, the individual units of which are connected to each other. They arose in different areas of linguistics: 1) in comparative historical linguistics; 2) in logical linguistics; 3) in the stylistic analysis of a literary text. In comparative historical linguistics, transformation techniques are used: 1) to identify the chronological sequence of linguistic phenomena; 2) determining their chronology; 3) reconstruction of the most ancient ancestral forms. In logical linguistics, transformation techniques were used: 1) to analyze the semantic features of syntactic structures; 2) to determine the meanings of homonymous forms (I see the table SEMANTIC FIELD TECHNIQUES. Methods of research based on the analysis of semantic features of linguistic units expressed to varying degrees and having varying degrees of proximity to each other. Semantic field techniques involve constructing a model according to the “center-periphery” principle "with the condition of gradual transitions, continuity of development of semantic features. In the center there may be semantic structures built on the principle of privative opposition, semantic paradigm, and a bundle of semantic features. The field semantic methodology began to be used in the study earlier. lexical meanings. Various techniques were used, as a result of which two main methods of the semantic field were developed: 1) the method of the conceptual field; 2) reception of the semantic valence of a word

/ Arnold I.V. "Basics scientific research in linguistics"

§3. Method of oppositions

Like many other methods, the method of oppositions is difficult to distinguish from the theory that gave rise to it. Therefore, the content of this paragraph will primarily be the theory of oppositions, and its application in research practice linguists will be presented relatively briefly.

Science owes the doctrine of oppositions to the outstanding Russian philologist N.S. Trubetskoy, who was one of the founders of the Prague Linguistic School. The theory of oppositions is presented by N.S. Trubetskoy in his now classic work on phonology. But with further use by many scientists different countries it turned out to be very fruitful at all levels of language (Trubetskoy, 1987).

Developed by N.S. Trubetskoy’s doctrine of oppositions is based on the well-known thesis of F. de Saussure: “The entire linguistic mechanism revolves around identities and differences, and these latter are only the reverse side of the former.” However, neither Saus-sur himself nor anyone else before Trubetskoy gave a complete theory of oppositions.

Let us briefly list the principles of the theory that underlie the method. First of all, it must be emphasized that not every difference is an opposition. Opposition is possible only when there are not only differences between its members, but also general signs. These latter are called the basis for comparison, and the distinctive feature is usually called a differential feature. Opposition can be defined as a semantically relevant difference in one attribute while the rest are similar.

The basis of the opposition can be considered as some abstract invariant. Real elements then turn out to be variants, complicated by some additional features. When comparing, not all features are taken into account and considered, but only those that are recognized as essential for the proposed model.

N.S. Trubetskoy distinguishes between opposition in relation to the system and opposition between members of the opposition. One of the later researchers who successfully combined the theory of opposition with the theory of graphs, S. Marcus convincingly showed that it is more appropriate to consider oppositions in relation to a system as relations between oppositions.

Oppositions between members of the opposition are divided into privative, or binary, gradual, or stepwise, and equipolent, or equivalent. Oppositions are called privative, one member of which is characterized by the presence and the other by the absence of a differential feature. Privativnye oppositions correspond to the binary logic of the excluded middle (yes - no), and therefore they are also called binary, and the classification according to them is dichotomous. The binary principle has been repeatedly criticized for coarsening reality. But coarsening is inevitable in any modeling and in any abstraction. In addition, it is worth considering that all other types of oppositions can, as a rule, be reduced to binary ones. So, for example, an equipollent opposition contrasting the original, metaphorical and metonymic meanings of a word can be considered as a privative opposition of the original and non-original, i.e. derived meanings with further subdivision within these latter.

Oppositions are called equivalent if they are neither a negation nor an affirmation of any attribute, but are characterized by its qualitative difference. Wed. kid child and kid Laika.Both members of the opposition are portable options kid kid,but the transfer in them is of a different type: in the first case it is metaphorical, and in the second it is metonymic.

Oppositions are called gradual, the members of which differ in different degrees, or gradations, of the same characteristic. For example, verbs: affect :: torment :: torture differ in the degree of intensity of suffering caused.

There are many examples of equipollent oppositions. Such a lexical equivalent opposition is, for example, any series of stylistic synonyms: girl :: maiden :: lass . In this case, the basis of opposition is denotative meaning young female creature, and stylistic reference is a differential feature. To indicate opposition, it is customary to use the following signs:: and■ = ■ .That is, the above opposition can be written like this: girl * maidens lass .

S. Marcus, already mentioned above, while developing the set-theoretic theory of oppositions, added zero and disjunctive oppositions to the listed types. Zero corresponds to identity, and disjunctive to lack of similarity, but these two types can only have an auxiliary meaning.

N.S. himself Trubetskoy contrasted oppositions between members of the opposition with opposition in relation to the system, distinguishing between proportional, isolated and multidimensional oppositions.

An opposition is called proportional if the relationship between its members is identical to the relationship between the members of some other opposition, so that they form a correlation of oppositions, which makes it possible to identify any linguistic pattern. The opposition in this case is represented as a fraction:

which allows us to identify a subset of adjectives with the prefix in the entire set of English adjectives un -, meaning the absence of the attribute indicated by the stem. Or another example:

Here the correlation consists of words that differ in pairs in that the first members of the pairs mean males, and the second - female, and the difference in meaning is morphologically expressed by the suffix - ess.

If there is no other pair in the system whose members would be in the same relationship, the opposition in question is considered isolated. For example: wit::witness , where the nominal stem of the first member, combined with a suffix, gives the name of the person, while usually the suffix is ness joins adjectival stems to form abstract nouns: ready::readiness.

Multidimensional N.S. Trubetskoy, called oppositions, the basis of which is not limited to the members of a given pair, but extends to other elements in the system.

Both Trubetskoy himself and later researchers outlined ways to use this method to identify classes of linguistic units and their sets on which various operations are possible. Appeal to the theory of oppositions is especially promising for revealing systematicity in language and in drawing up all kinds of classifications (Arnold, 1986).

The method of oppositions goes well with almost all other methods of linguistic analysis described in subsequent paragraphs of this chapter: for example, with distribution, no less often than with component or contextological.

Ferdinand de Sausser suggested that the system of language should be studied by contrasting its specific forms (units). Opposition is a pair of grammatical forms that are opposite to each other both in meaning and form. Three main qualitative types of oppositions in phonology have been created:

"taking away"

"gradual"

"equilibrium"

According to the number of members of the opposition, the opposites were divided into binary (two members) and more than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.).

Gradual opposition is formed by a contrasting group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or absence of an object, but by the degree of it. An example of gradual morphological opposition can be seen in the comparison category:

strong - stronger - strongest

In equilibrium opposition, a contrasting pair or group is formed, in which the members differ in different ways positive characteristics. An example of balanced opposition can be seen in the correlation of the person form of the verb to be:

am - this is this.

Both are balanced and gradual oppositions in morphology, as in phonology, can be reduced to subtractive oppositions.

The most important type of opposition is subtractive binary opposition; other types of opposition are reduced to binary opposition that takes away.

Binary opposition subtractive is formed by a contrastive pair of members, in which one of the members is characterized by the presence of a certain differential characteristic ("Mark"), while the other states are characterized by the absence of this function.

In different contextual conditions, one of the opposition members can be used in the position of the other, counter member. This phenomenon is usually called “oppositional reduction” (some authors use the term “oppositional substitution”). Two main types of oppositional reduction are differentiated: neutralization and transposition.

Neutralization as a linguistic concept, thanks to which we mean the suspension of otherwise functioning oppositions. The neutralization position is usually filled by the weak member of the opposition due to its more general semantics. Neutralization by the stylistically indifferent, the use of an unmarked member of the opposition in a position marked by a member does not violate the expressive conventions of everyday speech.

for example, the exhibition opens next week.

The example shows the case of neutralizing the opposition “present versus future.” The present form “opens”, which is the weak member of the opposition, is used in the position of the strong member and denotes future action.

Neutralization is possible due to the presence of adverbial tenses

(“next week”), which plays the role of a neutralizer in this case.

Another type of oppositional reduction called transposition occurs when one of the representatives of the opposition is placed in contextual conditions that are rare for him, that is, the use of forms is stylistically marked. Transposition is based on the contrast between members of the opposition; it can be defined as the contrastive use of counter-member of the opposition. As a rule, this is a marked member of the opposition, occupied transpositionally, but this is not always the case.

for example, he is always borrowing my pen.