УДК 811,111: [81’37]
STYLISTICALLY NEUTRAL WORDS
IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTEXT
Файфер Н.В.
(Kyiv, Ukraine)
Стаття присвячена дослідженню стилістично нейтральних слів (СНС), зокрема їх
семантичних характеристик. Мета роботи полягає у дослідженні лексико-семантичних властивостей стилістично немаркованих одиниць у романах У. С. Моема. Головним
завданням статті є аналіз різних типів контексту, а також контекстуальної реалізації
досліджуваних лексичних одиниць у зазначених творах.
Ключові слова: стилістично нейтральне слово (СНС), семантичні характеристики,
лексико-семантичні властивості, контекст, контекстуальна реалізація.
Статья посвящена исследованию стилистически нейтральных слов (СНС), их семантических особенностей, в частности. Цель исследования состоит в изучении лексико-семантических свойств стилистически нейтральных единиц в романах У. С. Моэма.
Главные задачи статьи – проанализировать разные типы контекста, а также контекстуальную реализацию исследуемых лексических единиц в указанных произведениях.
Ключевые слова: стилистически нейтральное слово (СНС), семантические особенности, лексико-семантические свойства, контекст, контекстуальная реализация.
The article is concerned with the investigation of stylistically neutral words (SNWs), their
semantic peculiarities in particular. The aim of the research is to highlight lexico-semantic
properties of stylistically unmarked units in the novels by W. S. Maugham. The main tasks of
the article are to analyze various types of context and the contextual realization of the lexical
units under study in the mentioned novels.
Key words: a stylistically neutral word (SNW), semantic peculiarities, lexico-semantic
properties, context, contextual realization.
The problem of meaning has always been in the centre of linguists’ attention in our country
and abroad [1: 196; 2: 15; 3: 62–63; 4: 161; 5: 124–125; 6: 53; 7: 89; 8: 61; 9: 43; 10: 7; 11:
215; 12: 57; 13: 18; 14: 8; 15: 9–10; 16: 73; 17: 4; 18: 12]. Moreover, it has been one of the
most disputable aspects of investigating lexical units. That is why this article will focus on the
neutral words of the English language and the variety of meanings they may possess in different types of context.
The object of the investigation is stylistically neutral vocabulary in the novels written by
William Somerset Maugham.
The subject of the article is the semantic aspect of stylistically neutral words, their contextual representation in the novels by W. S. Maugham.
The investigation is fulfilled on the material of W. S. Maugham’s novels: ‘Cakes and Ale’
[19], ‘Rain and Other Short Stories’ [20], ‘Theatre’ [21], ‘The Moon and Sixpence’ [22], ‘The
Painted Veil’ [23].
The purpose of the investigation is to highlight lexico-semantic properties of the lexical
units under study in the mentioned novels.
© Файфер Н.В., 2012
83
The main tasks of the research are:
1) to investigate lexico-semantic peculiarities of the neutral vocabulary in the novels written by W. S. Maugham;
2) to analyze various types of context in which stylistically unmarked words are used;
3) to represent the contextual potential of stylistically neutral words in the novels by
W. S. Maugham.
The article is marked by the novelty of its approaches to the analysis of stylistically neutral
words which undergo changes in the process of semantico-stylistic transposition.
The methods of linguistic investigation used in the article are:
1) the semantico-functional method;
2) the comparative method;
3) the method of contextual analysis;
4) the method of componential analysis.
The given above methods enable us to get into the semantic structure of stylistically unmarked lexical units and to investigate the processes which determine the stylistic actuality of
the neutral vocabulary in the novels by W. S. Maugham.
According to stylistic classification, the word-stock of the English language can be roughly
divided into three uneven groups: literary words, neutral words and colloquial words. The
neutral layer of the vocabulary is of universal character. It means that it is unrestricted in its
use, as neutral words possess no stylistic connotations and, as a result, they are suitable for any
communicative situation without restrictions [24: 25]. Besides, neutral words can be employed
in all the styles of any language and in all the spheres of human activity because they form a
bulk of the English vocabulary. Moreover, it is the neutral stock of words that is so prolific in
producing new meanings (all the neutral words are highly polysemantic) and generating new
stylistic variants.
This generative power of the neutral stratum in the English language is multiplied by the
very nature of the language itself. It has been estimated that most neutral English words are of
monosyllabic character, as, in the process of development from Old English to Modern English, most of the parts of speech lost their distinguishing suffixes [25: 73].
Every meaning in the English language and every difference in meaning is signalled either
by the form of the word itself or by context. The role of context is more prominent in languages
with highly developed homonymy and polysemy [18: 130]. English is the language in which
various speech conditions play a decisive role in the realization of word meanings.
The notion of context has several interpretations. Context is a certain environment that
creates conditions for semantico-stylistic transposition of a neutral word and realizes its stylistic intensity [26: 234]. According to N. N. Amosova [27: 59], context is a combination of an
indicator or indicating minimum and the dependant, that is the word the meaning of which is
to be rendered in a given utterance.
Every word in an utterance (with the exception of monosemantic words) needs some semantic indication, and is consequently a dependant. One and the same word may be a dependant (as it depends semantically on some indicator), and an indicator (as it helps to clarify some
other word in the same utterance). Thus, actual speech is a chain, or rather a net of interweaving and intercrossing semantic indications. It is an intricate framework of overlapping context
units of diverse types. Speech is on the whole a kind of knitted fabric made of diverse threads
84
and filaments, none of which can be pulled out of the tissue without destroying it [27: 59–60].
Analysing the semantic structure of the neutral word yellow we observe that one meaning is representative of the word in isolation, i.e. it invariably occurs to us when we hear the
word or see it written on paper. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used
in certain contexts. This is true of all polysemantic words. The adjective yellow, for example,
when used in isolation is understood to denote a certain colour whereas other meanings of this
word (i.e. “envious”, “suspicious” or “sensational”, “corrupt”), are perceived only in certain
contexts, e.g.: a yellow look, the yellow press etc.
As can be seen from the examples given above, the term context can be interpreted as a
minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. Context individualizes various meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say the meaning is determined by context. The meaning of every neutral word is surrounded by a special expressive
atmosphere that fluctuates depending on context [28: 365].
Many words are neutral in their direct meaning and emotional, or emotionally coloured,
under special conditions of context. Some meanings of a neutral word are insufficient and need
a certain environment to actualize their concepts [29: 50]. So the meaning of a neutral word
is considered to be a certain potential due to which the neutral word enriches itself in context
[30: 306].
Meanings of neutral polysemantic words observed only in certain contexts may be viewed
as determined either by linguistic (verbal) or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts [31: 56].
The two main types of a linguistic context which serve to determine individual meanings of
neutral words are the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are differentiated on whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.
In lexical contexts the lexical groups combined with a polysemantic word are under consideration. This can be illustrated by analyzing different lexical contexts in which neutral polysemantic words are used, e.g.: the adjective heavy in isolation is understood as meaning “of
great weight, weighty” (a heavy bag, a heavy log, heavy clouds etc.). When combined with the
lexical group of words denoting natural phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, it means “striking, falling with force, abundant”, e.g.: heavy wind, heavy snow, heavy storm.
The verb to take in isolation has primarily the meaning “to hold with both hands, grasp,
seize”, but when combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (e.g.: to take a bus, to take a train, to take a taxi etc.), it acquires the meaning synonymous
with the meaning of the verb to go. It can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing
out this or that individual meaning of a neutral word is the lexical group with which the word
in question is combined.
The meanings determined by lexical contexts are often referred to as lexically, or phraseologically, bound meanings. It means that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical
contexts. Here are some illustrations, taken from the novels by W. S. Maugham, to support the
idea:
“Chinese servants knew everything anyway. But they held their tongues” [23: 13].
“Walter doesn’t give me the impression of a fellow who’d care to wash a lot of dirty linen
in public” [23: 56].
“He knew you’d sacrifice me without a pang to save your own skin” [23: 88].
“No, no,” cried Kitty, flushing to the roots of her hair [23: 148].
85
“Oh what’s the good of beating about the bush?” [21: 208].
So, taking into account the given examples, we can claim that any word can be analysed
through its collocability with other words. If we know all the possible collocations, or wordgroups, into which a neutral polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings.
According to the character of the connection between the two elements of context (a dependant and an indicator), lexical contexts may be divided into two principal types [27: 35]:
1) the lexical context of the first degree;
2) the lexical context of the second degree.
The lexical context of the first degree is a type of context the contextual elements of which
have a direct (immediate) syntactical connection between them. Here are several examples to
illustrate the point:
“<…> heavy grey clouds came floating over the mouth of the harbour” [19: 32]. Here the
neutral word mouth is a dependant and the word harbour is an indicator, as the lexical meaning
of the word harbour realizes the meaning of the dependant word.
“<…> they gave him a look of great strength” [20: 33]. In the given example, the word look
serves as a lexical indicator for the realization of the preceding verb which is ambiguous, as it
has many meanings. Let’s take one more example by way of illustration:
“Mrs. Tower had by now recovered herself sufficiently to make a cutting remark” [20: 331].
The lexical context of the second degree is a unit of context in which there is no direct
syntactical connection between its principal elements though they belong to one and the same
sentence, e.g.: He brushed his hair, paying strict attention to the parting.
In grammatical context it is the grammatical, or syntactic, structure of the context that
serves to determine various individual meanings of a neutral polysemantic word. The syntactical context is a unit of context in which an indication comes not from the lexical meaning of
the indicator, but from the structural peculiarities of the utterance in which the dependant is
used [27: 49]. For example, one of the meanings of the verb to make is “to force, to induce”.
It is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do
something, e.g.:
“She was unreal, like a picture, and yet had an elegance which made Kitty feel all thumbs”
[23: 186].
Another meaning of the verb to make is “to become”. It is observed in the context of a different structure (the verb to make should be followed by an adjective and a noun), e.g.: to make
a good wife. This kind of meaning is sometimes described as grammatically, or structurally,
bound one.
Context may also play a vital role in fixing the meaning of words which are too vague,
or too ambiguous, to make sense by themselves, for example: the verb to do has such a wide
variety of uses that it is virtually meaningless in itself. Here are some illustrations from
W. S. Maugham’s works:
“Of course, I’ll go over to Paris if you think I can do any good, but you must tell me exactly
what you want me to do” [22: 51].
“I know it sounds funny-like, but there it is, I can’t read or write, only my name, an’ I only
learnt to do that (= “to write”) when I went into business” [20: 314].
So, taking into account all the examples we have examined, we may conclude that any
word which is emotively neutral may in certain contexts acquire emotive implications. All
86
neutral words are highly polysemantic. Every meaning of a neutral word and every difference
in meaning is signalled either by its form or by context. The contextual method of linguistic
research is based on the assumption that any difference in the meaning of a linguistic unit is
always indicated by any difference in its environment. Thus, the contextual analysis concentrates its attention on determining the minimal stretch of speech and the conditions necessary
and sufficient to reveal in which of its individual meanings the word in question is used.
In order to analyze the referential meaning of a neutral word one must identify those necessary and sufficient features that distinguish the meaning of one form from any other form which
might compete for a place within the same semantic territory. But in addition to discovering
these semantic features, or components, of meaning, it is necessary to find out what the relations are between the components, since that is also crucial for the understanding of meaning.
The componential analysis is a very important method of linguistic investigation which has
attracted a great deal of attention. To determine the linguistic meaning of any form contrasts
must be found, for there is no meaning apart from significant differences [32: 32]. Neutral
words have meanings only in terms of semantic contrasts with other words which share certain
features with them but contrast with them in respect to other features. If we attempt to determine some componential features of the central meaning of the neutral word father (the name
of one’s biological progenitor), it is clear that it can be done only by contrasting this central
meaning of father with the related meanings of other forms which occur in the same semantic
domain, e.g.: the meaning of father contrasts with that of mother (i.e.: father is male and mother
is female).
Moreover, the meaning of father contrasts with those of son and grandfather in referring
to a different generation, though it shares with son and grandfather the component of male sex.
The same meaning of father also contrasts with a related meaning of uncle, with which it shares
components of male sex and generation (one generation above ago). Father signifies someone
who is in a direct line of descent, while uncle is one lateral step removed. We may thus define
the meaning of father as consisting of three diagnostic components: male sex, one ascending
generation above ago, and direct line of descent. But this meaning can be known by means of
contrast with the meanings of words that share certain components with father but diverge from
the meaning of father with respect to other components.
The related meanings of mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, and cousin
combine with that of father to form a domain of primary kinship, having the common components of “human” and “kinship”. As such they serve to define the domain, in the sense that they
prescribe its boundaries by stating the essential features of the included meanings.
Though the diagnostic components of male sex, one ascending generation, and direct line
of descent serve to define the meaning of father as a biological progenitor, they are not the only
semantic components associated with this meaning. In a simile he was like a father to the boy,
the diagnostic components of the central meaning of father become secondary and other components become diagnostic, e.g.: 1) “watchful care for” and 2) “companionship”. All the supplementary components are called connotative, as they derive specifically from conventional
views and attitudes toward the referents.
The componential analysis does not attempt to describe in detail all the features or characteristics of each type of related meanings, but only to point out some distinctive contrasts which
serve to separate one meaning or a set of meanings from the others [32: 61]. The componential
87
analysis is not merely concerned with studying the forms and functions of referents and the
projection of their structure upon the language, in an attempt to make the meanings of neutral
words conform to the structure of a set of referents. Due to the process of reference we learn
various meanings of most neutral words in the active or passive vocabulary.
Thus, the componential analysis is an attempt to describe different meanings of words in
terms of a universal inventory of semantic components and their possible combinations [33:
58]. The componential analysis shows that the dimensions of meaning may be regarded as
semantic oppositions because the meaning of a word is reduced to its contrastive elements.
Procedures briefly outlined above proved to be very efficient for providing a researcher
with a deeper insight into different meanings of neutral words. The componential analysis helps
discover the semantic features, or components, of meaning and find out what the relations are
established between the components, as it is also crucial for the understanding of meaning.
Our future investigation will highlight the synonymic, antonymic and homonymic potential of the English neutral word-stock. Besides, frequency of neutral words, frequency and
occurrence of their grammatical combinability patterns can be analyzed as their functional
features as well.
LITERATURE
1. Євтушенко В. М. Типи аналізу синонімічного ряду / Вікторія Миколаївна
Євтушенко // Вісник Харківського національного університету ім. В. Н. Каразіна. – 2004.
– № 636. – С. 195–198.
2. Жуковська В. В. Лексико-семантичні та граматичні характеристики англійського
дієслова у художньому тексті: лінгвостатистичний аспект (на матеріалі популярних
політичних романів): дис. … канд. філол. наук: спец. 10.02.04 “Германські мови” /
Вікторія Вікторівна Жуковська. – К., 2006. – 307 с.
3. Левицкий В. В. Семасиология / Виктор Васильевич Левицкий. – Винница: Нова
кныга, 2006. – 512 с.
4. Малімон Л. К. Системні та функціональні характеристики іменників на позначення
часу в сучасній англійській мові: дис. … канд. філол. наук: спец. 10.02.04 “Германські
мови” / Леся Костянтинівна Малімон. – Луцьк, 1999. – 352 с.
5. Москалюк Н. В. Англійські віддієслівні іменники і відіменникові дієслова:
система і функціонування (на матеріалі газетних текстів): дис. … канд. філол. наук: спец.
10.02.04 “Германські мови” / Наталія Вікторівна Москалюк. – К., 2009. – 273 с.
6. Пшеничных А. Н. Эксплуатация многозначности слова при смене ракурса
концептуализации ситуации в диалогическом дискурсе / Анастасия Николаевна
Пшеничных // Вісник Харківського національного університету ім. В. Н. Каразіна. –
2006. – № 741. – С. 52–54.
7. Харитончик З. А. Лексикология английского языка: [уч. пособ.] / Зинаида Андреевна
Харитончик. – Минск: Выш. шк., 1992. – 229 с.
8. Черемисина М. И. Теоретические проблемы синтаксиса и лексикологии языков
разных систем / Майя Ивановна Черемисина. – Новосибирск: Наука, 2004. – 896 с. – (СО
РАН. Избранные труды).
88
9. Alm-Arvius Ch. Lexical Polysemy / Christina Alm-Arvius // Further Insights into
Semantics and Lexicography. – Lublin, 2007. – P. 43–55.
10.Campbell Br. Linguistic Meaning / Brenton Campbell // Linguistics: An International
Review. – 1967. – № 33. – P. 5–23.
11.Cann R. Formal Semantics: An Introduction / Ronnie Cann. – Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994. – 344 p.
12.Ikegami Y. Structural Semantics: A Survey and Problems / Yoshihiko Ikegami //
Linguistics: An International Review. – 1967. – № 33. – P. 49–67.
13.Kempson R. M. Semantic Theory / Ruth M. Kempson. – Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009. – 306 p.
14.Lyons J. Semantics / John Lyons. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. –
Vol. 1. – 384 p.
15.Palmer F. R. Semantics: A New Outline / Frank Robert Palmer. – M.: Vysšaja Škola,
1982. – 111 p.
16.Portner P. H. What Is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics / Paul H. Portner
// Journal of Literary Semantics: An International Review. – 2006. – Vol. 35, № 1. – P. 73–78.
17.Thomas J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics / Jenny Thomas. –
N.Y.: Longman Group Ltd., 1995. – 224 p.
18.Ullmann St. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning / Stephen Ullmann.
– Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. – 278 p.
19.Maugham W. S. Cakes and Ale / William Somerset Maugham. – M.: Progress
Publishers, 1980. – 237 p.
20.Maugham W. S. Rain and Other Short Stories / William Somerset Maugham. – M.:
Progress Publishers, 1977. – 406 p.
21.Maugham W. S. Theatre / William Somerset Maugham. – M.: Manager, 2002. – 304 p.
22.Maugham W. S. The Moon and Sixpence / William Somerset Maugham. – M.: Progress
Publishers, 1969. – 240 p.
23.Maugham W. S. The Painted Veil / William Somerset Maugham. – M.: Manager, 2002.
– 272 p.
24.Kukharenko V. A. A Book of Practice in Stylistics / Valeriia A. Kukharenko. – Vinnytsia:
Nova Knyha, 2000. – 160 p.
25.Galperin I. R. Stylistics / Ilya R. Galperin. – M.: Higher School, 1977. – 332 p.
26.Азнаурова Э. С. Очерки по стилистике слова / Э. С. Азнаурова. – Ташкент: ФАН,
1973. – 401 с.
27.Amosova N. N. English Contextology / Nataliya N. Amosova. – L.: LGU, 1968. – 104 p.
28. Виноградов В. В. Русский язык. Грамматическое учение о слове / Виктор
Владимирович Виноградов. – М.: Учпедгиз, 1947. – 784 с.
29.Никитин М. В. Лексическое значение слова: структура и комбинаторика. –
Михаил Васильевич Никитин. – М.: Высш. шк., 1983. – 127 с. – (Библиотека филолога).
30.Выготский Л. С. Мышление и речь. – Лев Семенович Выготский. – М.–Л.: Гос.
соц.-экономич. изд-во, 1934. – 362 с.
31.A Course in Modern English Lexicology / R. S. Ginzburg, S. S. Khidekel, G. Y.
Knyazeva, A. A. Sankin. – M.: Higher School Publishing House, 1966. – 275 p.
89
32.Nida E. A. Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures
/ Eugene A. Nida. – The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 1975. – 269 p.
33.Arnold I. V. The English Word / Irina V. Arnold. – M.: Vysšaja Škola, 1986. – 295 p.
УДК 811.111+801.82
Улановська О.В.
(Горлівка, Україна)
КОМПОЗИЦІЯ ТЕКСТУ ПОСТМОДЕРНІСТСЬКОЇ АНГЛОМОВНОЇ
ДРАМИ З ТОЧКИ ЗОРУ ЛІНГВОКОГНІТИВІСТИКИ
Стаття присвячена дослідженню композиційної структури тексту англомовної
драми епохи постмодернізму з точки зору її функціонування як лінгвокогнітивного конструкту.
Ключові слова: композиційна структура, текст драми, постмодернізм, лінгвокогнітивний конструкт.
Статья посвящается исследованию композиционной структуры текста англоязычной драмы эпохи постмодернизма с точки зрения ее функционирования как лингвокогнитивного конструкта, существующего в художественно-поэтическом сознании
историко-культурного сообщества.
Ключевые слова: композиционная структура, текст драмы, постмодернизм, лингвокогнитивный конструкт.
The article is devoted to the issue of a text composition and its studying from the point of
view of a linguistic-cognitive aspect in the modern scientific trends. The drama of Postmodernism in its compositional presentation in the English-speaking worldview is under analysis.
Key words: text composition, linguistic-cognitive aspect, drama of Postmodernism, compositional presentation.
«Для постмодернистских произведений характерна
метасемантика, достигаемая с помощью различных
коннотативных средств. Впрочем, все эти средства
можно обозначить всего лишь одним словом - игра...»
С. Исаев [5: 11]
В сучасній теоретичній думці Заходу серед філософів, літературознавців, мистецтвознавців та соціологів широко поширена теза про театральність сьогоденного соціального та духовного життя. Гі Дебор назвав сучасне суспільство «суспільством вистави» [13]. У. Б. Уорт у книзі «Сучасна драма і риторика театру» (1992) розглядає театр як
привілейований інститут культури, де відбувається художнє опосередкування соціального життя, де «риторика театру» виступає як «перехрещення тексту та інститутів, які
зробили можливим появу цього тексту» [15: 2].
© Улановська О.В., 2012
90