К.филол.н . Демиденко К.А.

Кемеровский институт (филиал) Российского государственного торгово-экономического университета, Российская Федерация

FIELD CATEGORIES IN MODELING THE WORD FAMILY WITH THE ROOT 'PRODUCE'

 

1.       The tasks and principles of field modeling

The basic methodological element of field modeling is the category of wholeness . Without considering the phenomenon as integrity, i.e. without discovering its internal dynamic organization and external insufficiency (even relative), it is impossible to speak about field presentation of the given phenomenon.

The idea of field modeling is extremely productive for scientific analysis. The field presentation of the phenomenon is designed to prove (1) that elements of the phenomenon under investigation are really actually empirically connected and interact systematically, (2) the fact that the given interaction implements focusing on the central idea expressing the specific character of the phenomenon. It is impossible to speak about the existence of integrity without affirmation of the regular interaction of its parts; it is impossible to acknowledge the originality of an object, i.e. distinguish it in the life continuum, without focusing on the central idea in the internal dynamics of the phenomenon under consideration.

The category of integrity is considered from two different points of view. First, the category of integrity can be used to characterize the style of the view - such as a view where certain parts of existence match in integrity.

For instance, if an appliance is taken apart, all the parts would still represent the whole appliance even though they are not in working order. In the presented case we can speak about "found" integrity, i.e. detectable by creative consciousness in an objectively chaotic world. However, when the appliance is assembled and switched on, i.e. the objective interaction of the parts is restored, the “objective” integrity not dependant on a person’s opinion is also restored.

It should be emphasized that the type of integrity ("found" or "objective") of the considered phenomenon essentially influences the process and the result of the field modeling as well as the possibility of applying the field methods to the description of objects. So, it is difficult to speak strictly about the field modeling in respect to the "found" form of integrity : the parts of the integrity do not interact. They are not found in a state of a regular cooperation. At the same time a field is an obligatory internal dynamic space. Field modeling therefore can be applied only to objective integrities. However the phenomena of field and objective integrity are not supposed to be c orrelated directly. In the strict sense , the idea of integrity is opposed to the idea of fragmentation. In other words , the indifference of some parts of existence to one another opposes their interaction. The field status of integrity is gained solely in the situation when the active cooperation of the parts focuses on the realization of some specific idea, i.e. when the dynamic influence of the parts of integrity is teleological.

Teleology (united internal direction to the realization of the general idea) provides the phenomenal nature of the integrity - it establishes its originality, limitation and distinction from the life continuum. The general idea behind the peculiarity of integrity proclaims the field law: "E verything concerning the general idea is inside the field. All the rest is outside it." The field law is better perceived at its boundaries where differentiation between inside and outside elements is held. This differentiation is often difficult and ambiguous to trace which intensifies the tension. Inside the field, the law effect is less perceivable : the focus of the field members on the general idea can be absolute or to a certain degree relative. The first group forms a core, the second a periphery.

In linguistics the extensive application of field modeling started in the twentieth century. The field methods are used to describe the synonymy, polysemy , verb semantics, a nd semantic categories. The object of the presented research is the word family phenomenon.

2. A word family as integrity

2.1. Derivative integrity

Historically the primary and at present dominant principle of the word family modeling is a genetic principle. A word family is considered as a complex of lexical units united by direct relationship. The genetic principle, thereby, refers to a historic reconstruction. However it should be noted that historicism as a method of scientific modeling does not correlate with field presentation of the phenomena. A field model can be applied only to a current process, presented at the particular time at the particular location, which makes the description of the word family integrity in terms of historicism impossible. The word x is derived from the word y , and from that moment any historic relationship between these units ends. They continue functioning as independent units. The word y receives both semiotic and communicative independence. In this situation the word family represents sequential historic events separated at time and location. The fairness of this conclusion is confirmed by the intensity of the demotivation trend in languages.

However, it is difficult to argue with the inverse: linguists have always tried to   find integrity in a word family. The first attempts to describe integrity and originality of a word family are found in works of language historians reconstructing word families based on etymology. This situation relates to the metaphor about the disassembled device that was described above. In an etymological word family , the products of consequent historic events are linked together; the problem of these products cooperation is not considered. Consequently, an etymologically reconstructed word family is a "found" integrity because the objective interaction of related words is not proved, their combination is based on scientifically-historical research, i.e . the integrity is scientifically "found." In the presented article "found" and "objective" integrities are opposed. Concerning a word family this opposition will not be absolutely correct terminologically since historical connections are objective and can be proved. The objectivity of a word family integrity is found in its perceptibility. The fact of perceptibility is difficult to overestimate! If the integrity is "perceived" (instead of being found rationally), it is relevantly and dynamically presented in life as an integrity. Etymologists undoubtedly perceived the integrity of a word family though they have not proved it. The integrity of a word family is also perceived by ordinary language speakers. What way has the scientific objectivation of this intuitive perception taken?

The creation of a word family model as an integrity was influenced by the Geneva scientific school and, initially by the works of Ferdinand de Saussure, who on one level dissociated language diachrony and synchrony and on the other level specified immanent- structuralistic direction in studying linguistic phenomena. Hereafter it became obvious to the European linguists that a word family should be investigated as a synchronous phenomenon existing in one time and location. Comprehension of this has become an important step towards phenomenological modeling of a word family. However, it was necessary to establish a word family as the integrity ascertaining both the fact and the type of elements interaction inside the supposed integrity.

The further course of investigation is well-known. Word family modeling was based on system-derivative relations. Word family material was arranged based on typical word-building patterns. For instance, in English there exists a word-building pattern: ‘ verb + - er /-or ? noun (a person who does something) ’. In compliance with this pattern, connection between the words "to direct" ? "director" is established. According to the formal-derivative concept the interaction of word family members is the moment of actualization of system derivative relations. However the question whether these system derivative relations are objective, i.e. whether they exist and can be perceived, is still an open issue.

System derivative relation is a phenomenon of a typical level. The word-formation pattern is deduced empirically from the analysis of a certain number of one-structural words. Consequently, the private relation among the members of the particular word family is regulated by a set of similar relations in the language. Subsequently derivative integrity of a word family can be perceived. Nevertheless this perception intensifies only when the mind perceiving a word family has corresponding cognitive experience - if the perceiving mind is aware of the set of typical word-building patterns, i.e. can execute intuitive preliminary word-building analysis. We presume that this knowledge is not necessary for cognitive activity of speech. Using a word in cognitive activity of speech, there is no need to correlate it with a certain word-building pattern. The given derivative model is relevant only in the case of metalinguistic effort - the attempt to comprehend language in its immanence.

A number of points should be clarified. First, the fact of using words in cognitive activity of speech is considered when a word-building model can be recollected (consciously or intuitively). Second, the metaconsciousness is not a prerogative of scientists; any language speaker is capable of meta-effort. Especially relevant skills of meta-activity are found in language games. Nevertheless it is impossible to assert that metalanguistic activity (language games, language analysis) is a cognitive activity of speech. The primary concern of language is to be an intermediary between the world and a person.

By way of conclusion it can be said that derivative integrity of a word family is relevant only for metaconsciousness .

2.2. Versions of functional integrity

Obviously, one of the major problems of the modern theory of word-building and motivology is the creation of a word family model as integrity on the basis of cognitive activity data. Such a model should be functional relating to language and pragmatic relating to a speaker, i.e. it should be a record of the cofunction principle and joint functioning of the word family members in the language activity of native speakers.

There are approaches to such a modeling in modern linguistics. Word families were considered as the area of aspects (semantic potentialities) manifestation represented by the derivative root and revealing the core concept of a word family [7]. The concept of a " derivative word " – a conglomerate of cognate words closely connected semantically and able to cofunction in speech – was introduced [13]. Focusing on a phenomenon of a derivative word , M. Shkuropatsky , however, was not targeted at detecting signs of integrity in word families.

In the presented article we dare to offer two authors' models dealing with a problem of word family integrity and its field arrangement in different ways.

2.2.1. Proposition-frame modeling of a word family

Proposition-frame modeling allows another inner system in a word family based on active-semantic relations between cognate words to be revealed. The theory that the phenomenon of a word family is generated by a situational character of a human's representation of the world is in its focus. In the course of the cultural-comprehension activity, a person "connects" a world, noticing and fixing relations among the world's objects obvious to him. He understands that ' a producer produces a product' . A person intuitively feels a certain potential situation, a system of obvious role communications between words-phenomena. The corresponding image of a word family is deeply pragmatic and practical; it complies with the natural logic of common sense.

In a stream of cognitive activity each of the words-concepts establishes special role connections with other cognate words. For example, reader (the one who reads) is the subject (S) of the predicate (P) to read, and the word reading (meaning ‘garbage’) is the object (O) of this subject action or the result (R) of this action ( reading meaning ‘erudition’). Establishing such a connection, the unity-situation is formed: reader (S) - read (P) - reading (O; R). The presented scheme can be continued by including other word family members. The complete description of corresponding role connections among cognate words allows for the presentation of a word family in the form of a complex situation or a frame (meaning ‘the complex knowledge set in the form of stereotypic relevant situations’) [4; 9; 10].

A convenient unit of word family frame modeling is a proposition as a scheme of an elementary situation. The term proposition in its multiple meanings can compete with the term concept . From the great variety of proposition theories that exist in logic, psychology, cognitive science, cybernetics and linguistics, it is possible to select the general element which can be taken as the principle of modeling.

First, the science of logic considers a proposition as the set system of relations among any units in which each unit is connected with another one, and in aggregate they have a resultant importance (a classic example of this is a function equation). Second, the proposition is the true statement where the true/lie factor is solved at the syntactical level. The third property of a proposition valuable to the given description is relevant in a greater degree for a cognitive science in which this phenomenon is considered as a form of storage of prototypical knowledge in the consciousness of a speaker.

It should be noted that for a long time the proposition principle has been successfully applied in word-formation (both structural and cognitive) in studying the phenomenon of a derivative word , word-formation type structure and other semantic issues [1; 2; 3; 8; 11; 14]. The introduction of propositional methodology makes it possible to reconsider the phenomena of a derivative word and the word-formation semantics. The works of G. Vinokur affected derivative methodology for a considerable period: word-building meaning was formulated only in a form of definition ( producer is the one who produces ). Such a practice can hardly be called productive: defining is a kind of metalanguistic activity; therefore, the definition in its primordial concept is not capable of bringing a researcher to the understanding of a derivative word functioning in cognitive activity of people.

The proposition formulation of word-formation meaning (the producer produces ) presented an opportunity to displace accents: the properties of a derivative word are studied by including words in natural cognitive structures instead of a lexicographic analysis. It is remarkable that in domestic linguistics the word-formation raised the question of propositions as the storage form of prototypical cultural knowledge long before the "cognitive boom."

2.2.2. Motivational assertion modeling of a word family

An assertion model raises the issue of a special word family discourse structure. A modeling unit is a motivational statement (assertion) identical in structure to a natural communicative sentence. The task of an assertion is to coordinate two cognate words within an elementary communicative unit proving the ability of the given cognate words to cooperate with each other in the nearest communicative context - a sentence.

The motivational assertion model is formal as a word family is formed in compliance with the designed forms of the motivational assertions. In the process of modeling, semantic connection between two cognate words is established. It should be noted that the priority of one of them is not significant, i.e. in assertion modeling detecting a derivative vector "from motivating to motivated " is irrelevant. To connect two words equal in rights, a natural communicative sentence (‘ х y’ ), but not a definition (‘ х is y ’) is applied. The functionality of the motivational assertion model is revealed in the presented principle/

Motivational assertion word family modeling consists of a set of operations. All the possible motivational connections of cognate words are examined and formulated as assertions. Ex.: a {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale >} is {producible < capable of being produced >} . All the possible connections being formulated, the word family is presented as a variety of motivational statements. Each motivational unit is given an order number. Every unit is assigned a motivational coefficient equal to the number of its connections in the word family. According to the motivational coefficients the motivational core and periphery are determined: the motivational units with the biggest number of motivational connections are called 'core units' , the motivational units with the smallest number of motivational connections are called 'periphery units' . In cases of multiple meanings each word should be considered separately. Each lexico -semantic variant is a motivational unit, f. ex.: a {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services> } {produces ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} goods; {producer ² < a person that grows agricultural products >} grows {produce ⁵ < farm products >} _.

As a result the assertion model of the word family is presented as a list of assertions and a chart of motivational units and motivational coefficients [5; 6].

3. Characteristics and degrees of a word family core

It is obvious that derivative, frame and assertion word family models differ dramatically. Therefore three various levels of word family phenomenon consideration and three word family cores should be discussed. It is appropriate to consider morphemic, underlying and discourse levels of word family modeling.

At a morphemic level members of a word family will traditionally be organized in compliance with the system-derivative characteristics: morphemic structures and word-formation models. A derivative core is a word-formation head.

An underlying level is an outlook, space of knowledge, world assessment and world modeling. A frame model corresponds to this level as the structure correlating a word family with the cognitive stereotypes. The frame core will be presented by a word which is the centre of a word family situation possessing the greatest number of frame activities, i.e. involved in the most parts of mini-situations (propositions) of the united word family frame.

On the discursive level, members of a word family are organized in accordance to their potential of co-functioning in speech activity, i.e. in compliance with their ability to cooperate within the minimum communicative context (a communicative sentence). The assertion core is represented by a word capable of cooperating in speech with the greatest number of cognate words.

It should be emphasized that not always all of the three cores of the described models are congruent. When one word is the core in all of the three models, such a word family can be named a 'strong core word family . ' A word family where one word is the core in two models can be named a 'marked core word family . ' Consequently, a word family with three different words for cores in three models can be named a 'weak core word family . '

4. Presentation of the models for the word family with the root ' produce '

4.1 The word-formation model

produce

- produc- er

- produc- ible

-product

- product- ion

- product- ion- ize

- product- ive

- productiv- ity

4.2 The propositional model.

producer / (X) somebody productive (S-subject) – produces (P-predicate) – (X) something producible (O-object) – in a process of production (R ₀ - resulting process) – using productive labor, capital, funds and so on; productivity of labor and so on (I - instrument) – resulting in produce , product, production (R - result); [12]

 

 

4.3 The motivational assertion model

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ {produces ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ goods; 6-1

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ {produces ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ services; 6-1

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ manufactures {produce ⁴ < a manufactured product >} ₄ ; 6-4

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ manufactures a {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale >} ₁₀ ; 6-10

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ works to receive {production ² < something produced; a product >} ₁₄ ; 6-14

A {producer ² < a person that grows agricultural products > } ₇ grows {produce ⁵ < farm products >} ₅ ; 7-5

A {producer ³ < a person whose job is to control the preparation of a play, film, or broadcast, but who does not direct the actors > } ₈ {produces ³ < to find the money for a film or play and control the way it is made >} ₃ films; 8-3

A {producer ³ < a person whose job is to control the preparation of a play, film, or broadcast, but who does not direct the actors > } ₈ manages {production ⁴ < a film, record, play, etc., viewed in terms of its making or staging >} ₁₆ ; 8-16

A {producer ³ < a person whose job is to control the preparation of a play, film, or broadcast, but who does not direct the actors > } ₈ participates in {production ³ < the process of or management involved in making a film, play, or record >} ₁₅ ; 8-15

A {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale > } ₁₀ is {producible < capable of being produced >} ₉ ; 10-9

Something {producible < capable of being produced > } ₉ can be {produced ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ ; 9-1

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ creates something {producible < capable of being produced >} ₉ ; 6-9

A {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale > } ₁₀ can be {produced ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ ; 10-1

A {production ⁴ < a film, record, play, etc., viewed in terms of its making or staging > } ₁₆ can be {produced ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ ; 16-1

The { productibility < the quality or state of being producible > } ₁₁ of a {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale >} ₁₀ 11-10

The { producibility < the quality or state of being producible > } ₁₂ of a {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale >} ₁₀ is important for its manufacturing; 12-10

The { productibility < the quality or state of being producible > } ₁₁ of an item is important for {production ¹ < the act or process of producing >} ₁₃ ; 11-13

The { producibility < the quality or state of being producible > } ₁₂ of an item is important for {production ¹ < the act or process of producing >} ₁₃ ; 12-13

A {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale > } ₁₀ can be { productionized < to start producing >} ₁₈ ; 10-18

{production ⁵ < total output especially of a commodity or an industry > } ₁₇ can be { productionized < to start producing >} ₁₈ ; 17-18

{production ¹ < the act or process of producing > } ₁₃ can be {productive ¹ < producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities >} ₁₉ ; 13-19

A {productive ³ < currently used in forming new words or expressions > } ₂₁ suffixes can {produce ² < to create >} ₂ new words; 21-2

Something {productive ² < producing or achieving a lot > } ₂₀ is very efficient at {producing ² < to create >} ₂ ; 20-2

Something {productive ² < producing or achieving a lot > } ₂₀ is very efficient at {producing ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ ; 20-1

Something {productive ¹ < producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities > } ₁₉ is very efficient at {producing ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ something; 19-1

{productivity ¹ < the state or quality of being productive > } ₂₂ is important when {producing ¹ <to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} ₁ ; 22-1

{productivity ¹ < the state or quality of being productive > } ₂₂ is important when { producing ² < to create >} ₂ ; 22-2

A {producer ¹ < a person or organization that produces goods or services > } ₆ is always looking for ways to increase worker {productivity ¹ < the state or quality of being productive >} ₂₂ ; 6-22

Something is {produced ¹ < to manufacture or create economic goods and services > } ₁ at some level of {productivity ² < the rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor >} ₂₃ ; 1-23

{produce ⁴ < a manufactured product > } ₄ is manufactured at some level of {productivity ² < the rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor >} ₂₃ ; 4-23

A {product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale > } ₁₀ is manufactured at some level of {productivity ² < the rate at which goods or services are produced especially output per unit of labor >} ₂₃ ; 10-23

	motivational unit	motivational coefficient
1.	{produce 1 < to manufacture or create economic goods and services >} 1	9
2.	{producer 1 < a person or organization that produces goods or services >} 6	7
3.	{product < an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale >} 10	7
4.	{producer 3 < a person whose job is to control the preparation of a play, film, or broadcast, but who does not direct the actors >} 8	3
5.	{producible < capable of being produced >} 9	3
6.	{production 1 < the act or process of producing >} 13	3
7.	{productivity 1 < the state or quality of being productive >} 22	3
8.	{productivity 2 < the rate at which goods or services are produced, especially output per unit of labor >} 23	3
9.	{produce 2 < to create >} 2	3
10.	{ productibility < the quality or state of being producible >} 11	2
11.	{productive 2 < producing or achieving a lot >} 20	2
12.	{produce 4 < a manufactured product >} 4	2
13.	{production 4 < a film, record, play, etc., viewed in terms of its making or staging >} 16	2
14.	{ productionize < to start producing >} 18	2
15.	{productive 1 < producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities >} 19	2
16.	{ producibility < the quality or state of being producible >} 12	2
17.	{produce 3 < to find the money for a film or play and control the way it is made >} 3	1
18.	{produce 5 < farm products >} 5	1
19.	{producer 2 < a person that grows agricultural products >} 7	1
20.	{production 2 < something produced; a product >} 14	1
21.	{production 3 < the process of or management involved in making a film, play, or record >} 15	1
22.	{production 5 < total output especially of a commodity or an industry >} 17	1
23.	{productive 3 < currently used in forming new words or expressions >} 21	1

 

The presented word family with the root 'produce' is the 'strong core word family' because the verb 'to produce' is the core word in the derivative, frame and assertion word family models.

The fall of the authority of structuralism and formalism raised an issue of "reality" of some language phenomena. Among those issues is the phenomenon of a word family. Historically it is real, but is it relevant in the cognitive activity of speakers? Field modeling offers the scientific proofs of the "reality" of a word family phenomenon: 1. the field technique specifies ways of word family representation as integrity; 2. it provides insight into perceived, empirically presented integrity of word families which is relevant for people's consciousness and activity.

List of reference links:

1.            Араева Л.А. Парадигматические отношения на словообразовательном уровне: [текст] / Л.А. Араева . – Кемерово: Кузбассвузиздат , 1990. – 77с.

2.            Араева Л.А. Словообразовательный тип как семантическая микросистема. Суффиксальные субстантивы (на материале русских говоров): [текст]: дис . ... д. филол . н. 10.02.01 / Л. А. Араева . – М., 1994. – 457 с.

3.            Араева Л.А. Эволюция теории полимотивации : [текст] / Л.А. Араева // Современные наукоемкие технологии. – Кемерово: Кузбассвузиздат , 2005.   – №3. – С. 13 – 20.

4.            Гофман И. Анализ фреймов: эссе об организации повседневного опыта: [текст] / И. Гофман. – М., 2004.

5.            Демиденко К.А. К постановке вопроса об ассертивном моделировании мотивационных отношений: [текст] / К.А. Демиденко // Современная филология: актуальные проблемы, теория и практика. – Красноярск, 2005. – С. 198-201.

6.            Демиденко К.А. Полевая структура и тематический состав гнезд однокоренных слов группы ‘время года’ (в аспекте мотивационно-ассертивного моделирования): [текст] / К.А. Демиденко // Вестник КрасГУ . – Красноярск: КрасГУ , 2006. – Вып.6. – С. 257-261.

7.            Евсеева И.В. Словообразовательное гнездо как фрагмент языковой картины мира: [текст] / И.В. Евсеева // Лингвистика как форма жизни. Сборник научных трудов, посвященный юбилею Л. А. Араевой . – Кемерово: « Кузбассвузиздат », 2002. – С. 109-112.

8.            Катышев П.А. Мотивационная многомерность словообразовательной формы: [текст]/ П.А. Катышев. – Томск: Изд-во ТГУ, 2001. – 130 с .

9.            Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов: [текст] / Е.С. Кубрякова , В.З. Демьянков, Ю.Г. Панкрац , Л.Г. Лузина. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1996. – 248 с .

10.       Мински М. Фреймы для представления знаний: [текст] / М. Мински . – М.: «Энергия», 1979.

11.       Панкрац Ю.Г. Пропозициональные структуры и их роль в формировании языковых единиц разных уровней (на материале сложноструктурированных глаголов современного английского языка) : [текст]: автореф . дис . … докт . филол . Наук / Ю.Г. Панкрац . – М., 1992.

12.       Шабалина, А.Н. Значимость сопоставления языковых картин мира   для преодоления проблем межкультурного общения: [текст] / А.Н. Шабалина // Язык, культура, образование в современном мире: материалы Международной конференции (г. Пермь, 8-9 ноября 2006). В 2ч. – Пермь, 2006. – Ч.1. – 254с. – С. 97-99.

13.       Шкуропацкая М.Г. Деривационное измерение лексики (системный аспект) / М.Г. Шкуропацкая . – Барнаул: Изд-во Алт . ун-та, 2003. – 388 с .

14.   Янцененцкая М.Н. Пропозициональный аспект словообразования (обзор работ сибирских дериватологов ): [текст] / М.Н. Янцененцкая // Актуальные проблемы региональной лингвистики и истории Сибири. – Кемерово: Кузбассвузиздат,1992. – С. 4-33.