Kulgavova L.V.
Associate Professor, PhD, Irkutsk State University
SYSTEMIC MEANINGS OF WORDS VS. SPEAKER’S SUBJECTIVE SENSES (PARADIGMATIC ASPECT)
Abstract
The paper is devoted to subjective interpretation of words by the speakers depending on various pragmatic factors such as ludic intentions, life experience, etc. The examples illustrating subjective interpretation of three types of paradigmatic relations – hypero-hyponymic relations, antonymic relations, synonymic relations – are considered.
Keywords: pragmatic factors, taxonomy, occasional antonyms, synonyms.
Ключевые слова: прагматические факторы, таксономия, окказиональные антонимы, синонимы.
Subjective senses of words are not fixed in the system of the language and bear an individual character depending on one’s life experience, age, gender, intentions and other pragmatic factors. This paper deals with interpretation of three types of semantic relations between the words such as hypero-hyponymic relations, antonymic relations, and synonymic relations.
HYPERO-HYPONYMIC RELATIONS. Hypero-hyponymic relations existing within the system of the English vocabulary are fundamental for its organization. However, in speech their rules can be violated for various reasons. One of them is ludic. In this example of subjective categorization of the animal world, the intention is to produce a humorous or ironic effect:
“I sat down by her and made a few specifications about the moral surface of nature as set forth by the landscape and the contiguous perspective. That evening was surely a case in point. The moon was attending to business in the section of sky where it belonged, and the trees was making shadows on the ground according to science and nature, and there was a kind of conspicuous hullabaloo going on in the bushes between the bullbats and the orioles and the jack-rabbits and other feathered insects of the forest. And the wind out of the mountains was singing like a jew’s harp in the pile of old tomato cans by the railroad track” [2, 98 99].
According to the scientific taxonomy and, as a result, the linguistic taxonomy reflecting hypero-hyponymic relations, a bullbat, an oriole and a jack-rabbit cannot be classified as insects, because a bullbat is a bird (a nighthawk), an oriole is a bird (a bird with black and yellow feathers), and a jack-rabbit is a mammal (a large North American hare with long ears). Then, if the use of the adjective feathered can be justified in reference to a bullbat and an oriole, it is doubtful in connection with a jack-rabbit. Thus, in this example the scientific picture of the animal world is distorted, but with the help of this the author creates a comic situation and makes the reader smile at the hero’s attempts to impress the listener by the obscure phrases made up of the words belonging to the bookish style.
ANTONYMIC RELATIONS.
In modern linguistics the issue of contextual antonyms is raised. These are words which are opposed only under some specific contextual conditions. The polarity of such words is not fixed in the system of the language and their opposition often bears a subjective character, consequently contextual antonyms can be treated as occasional antonyms, e.g.:
“Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote” [3].
“…the new director of the Metropolitan Museum had announced himself an enemy to tradition and a friend of progress…” [9].
“You know, my dear child, that one cannot find peace in work or in pleasure, in the world or in a convent, but only in one’s soul” [8].
It is particularly interesting to study occasional antonymy because it can tell us a lot about the person’s inner world, their unique perception of reality. Let us consider in this connection a few examples concerning the opposition love – hate.
According to the dictionaries of antonyms, the antonyms of the noun love are hate, hatred. However, the situation is not always viewed in black and white. There are such cases in which the words love and hate do not appear to be contrasted because the feelings they stand for are not opposed by the speakers. On the contrary, it is stated that they are identical. Thus, in the next two contexts, where the speakers cannot tell hate from love, it is emphasized that the feelings, named by the nouns hate (enmity) and love, are very close. Cf.: love and hate were very near allied; enmity … was very near to love; a strange, perilous intimacy which was either hate or love, or both:
“The constant scenes she made me did not very much affect me. I led my own life. Sometimes, indeed, I wondered whether it was passionate love she felt for me or passionate hate. It seemed to me that love and hate were very near allied” [7, 654].
“There was a pause of strange enmity between the two men, that was very near to love. It was always the same between them; always their talk brought them into a deadly nearness of contact, a strange, perilous intimacy which was either hate or love, or both” [4, 35].
The next example illustrates that case when love and hate are not differentiated at all: it is maintained that they are one and the same feeling:
“I loved her. Yes, I loved her still with a last tense sexual desire. But love, hate, desire – aren’t they all the same? Three in one and one in three. I could never have hated Ellie, but I hated Greta. I enjoyed hating her. I hated her with all my heart and with a leaping joyous wish…” [1, 184].
The following statement makes it clear that hatred may be none other than love:
“Years ago, when he hated her because she made him so unhappy, he would have been glad to tell her. He wanted to hurt her then as she hurt him, because his hatred was only love” [6, 272].
If the feeling designated by the noun hate is not the opposite of the feeling named by the word love, then what is its opposite? Some language users think that: “…the opposite of love isn’t hate. It’s lethargy. Nothingness” [5, 267]. “The opposite of love is not hate but apathy” [5, 227].
So we can conclude that the subjective, idiosyncratic perception of such feelings as love and hate may be very specific. It influences the communication process, in particular the use of the words love and hate, which in the above discourse do not seem to be antonymous. According to the last two contexts, the antonyms of the noun love would be lethargy, apathy and even nothingness. They could be called occasional antonyms.
SYNONYMIC RELATIONS.
It can be difficult sometimes to interpret synonyms since they are words that have something in common and yet there are subtle nuances, certain differences between them. Let us consider the use of the adjectives beautiful and handsome. Beautiful applies to mental appreciation as well as sensual delight, while handsome stresses poise and dignity of form and proportion. Of interest here is a context in which beautiful and handsome reveal their two-faced character: there are similarities between them, but at the same time they are slightly different (The two things are not exactly the same):
“We should not put it precisely like that,” said Mr. Lippincott. “There is a suggestion of age about pensioning anyone off and Greta is a young woman, and I may say a very handsome young woman. Beautiful, in fact,” he added in a deprecating, disapproving voice. “She’s very attractive to men, too.” [1, 77].
“I’m never any hand at describing people but I’ll have a shot at describing Greta. To begin with one couldn’t deny that she was, as Ellie had said, very beautiful and also, as Mr. Lippincott had reluctantly admitted, very handsome. The two things are not exactly the same. If you say a woman is handsome it does not mean that actually you yourself admire her. Mr. Lippincott, I gathered, had not admired Greta” [1, 80].
According to this discourse, the use of the adjective handsome in reference to a woman does not necessarily imply that the speaker admires her. However, in the system of the language, in the lexicographical sources this subtlety is not recorded. What is made obvious there is quite the other way round. Handsome is always a compliment, an admiring way of describing someone. The adjective means “pleasing in appearance, especially having strong or distinguished features”. Although handsome is more often used for men, women can also be called handsome. It suggests that a woman is not conventionally attractive, but very good-looking (or interesting-looking), and also healthy and strong. Handsome is less likely to be used to describe a woman who is delicate or petite.
References:
- Christie A. Endless Night. – London; Glasgow: Collins. Fontana Books, 1970. – 191 p.
- Henry O. 100 Selected Stories / Chosen by Sapper. – Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Classics, 1995. – 735 p.
- Imaginary Speech of John Adams By Daniel Webster (1782 1852). URL: https://www.bartleby.com/400/prose/786.html
- Lawrence D.H. Women in Love. – Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Classics, 1993. – 508 p.
- Le Carré J. A Small Town in Germany. – New York: Dell, sine anno. – 311 p.
- Maugham W.S. Rain and Other Short Stories. – M.: Progress Publishers, 1977. – 407 p.
- Maugham W.S. The Complete Short Stories. – London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1954. – Vol. II. – P. I VIII, 529 1048.