ON THE LINGUISTIC SIGN ASYMMETRY

          Asymmetry is a wide-ranging phenomenon that manifests itself  in various ways. Linguistics is one of  its fields of expression.

          The paper deals with the theory of the linguistic sign and its asymmetry from the point of view of different scientists. One of the founders of Geneva Linguistic School S.O.Kartzevsky (1884-1955) was the first to create a solid theory of the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign. In his article the author managed to reveal the reasons for rising (origin) of the asymmetry and could also found the pure linguistic sources of  provenance  of the homonymy and synonymy. His following words are of great importance nowadays too: “Homophony is a common occurrence   while homonymy is its peculiar display (or: manifestation). Homonymy is usually displayed in the conceptual aspect of the language. In this aspect it (homonymy) can be opposed by another phenomenon – heterophony, i.e. synonymy of concepts. However, it is nothing more than the two sides of one principle. This principle can be generalized in the following theory: any linguistic sign is a potential homonym and a synonym at a time… Such a logical conclusion proceeds from the distinguishing feature of a sign. Moreover, any linguistic sign must carry such a feature. Otherwise, it will not differ from the signal [Kartzevsky, 24-25].”

          Further, the author states that homonyms in their character are more psychological, than logical. And the logical character is more inherent to synonyms. The author’s ideas concerning the grammatical and semantic transpositions have also had a great significance. In S.O.Kartzevsky’s opinion the following assumption accounts for arising the linguistic sign asymmetry: the signifying has a tendency to fulfill other functions besides its own core, primary ones. And the signified has a tendency to be expressed by various other means besides its own marks.

          The concepts of symmetry/asymmetry initially being philosophical categories were first put in a certain system in the XIX th century on the material of crystallography. And in the same field the types of asymmetry were defined. Later symmetry/asymmetry ideas found access to such sciences as geometry, physics and etc. Linguistics began using these ideas, as it is stated above, thanks to the efforts made by  S.O.Kartzevsky.

          A sign and a meaning, a form and a content are not always completely balanced.  Because in some cases the same sign or form fulfils several functions, i.e.  has different meanings, and the same meaning or content can be conveyed by means of several signs or forms. This phenomenon is formed as the theory of linguistic asymmetry.

          As the author V.G.Gak writes, if there were not a linguistic sign asymmetry, there wouldn’t be a theoretical linguistics too. And all the arguments and disputes upon the linguistics would be reduced to a minimum. Symmetry (gr. symmetria) is defined as conformity, proportionality, coincidence and etc. It expresses in a broad sense such notions as invariability, immutability and serves as a basis for conservation laws [SED 1980, 1219]. Simplifying  presented ideas, we can say that symmetry is the manifestation of orderliness, right sequence, permanency and constancy among the objects and phenomena of the objective reality.

          According to the sources, the asymmetry is defined as the absence of the symmetry. Thus the asymmetry can be fixed as an infringement of  orderliness, permanency and constancy [SED, 84; Gak 2000, 54]. As written by Gak, asymmetry can be observed in the following two cases: a) in distinguishing a centre (core) and a periphery and  b) in distinctions of the signifying and the signified. From the point of view of the language structure the centre (core) consists of the primary phonemes, word-forming, word-changing, word-combining models mostly used in the period to which the development of the language belongs. The periphery is the deviation from these models. The asymmetry of the signifier and the signified can be seen on the level of a system, a structure and a function. System asymmetry is mainly observed in irregular development of the language links and in paradigm anomaly of some words [LED, 47].

          Chapter IV of the fundamental work “The Theoretical Grammar of the French Language”  by V.G.Gak is devoted to the problem of asymmetry in the  grammar. As the author states, each level and section of the language should be divided into central (core), standard, main and peripheral elements. The center↔periphery correlation can be seen in structural, semantic and functional aspects of the language. Gak’s theory says, in structural aspect the centre comprises the primary word-changing and word-forming models, whereas the periphery is the deviation from these models and standards.  This idea is illustrated by means of the following example on the formation of the plural form in the French language: if adding the ending  -s to the stem of the word is the main and primary way of getting the plural form, then other ways of  getting this form (œil – yeux, travail – travaux ) belong to peripheral layer of the language. A sample of the same type can be taken from the English language too: primary ways – book-books, hand-hands; secondary ways – foot-feet, ox-oxen, child-children and etc.

          In categorical-semantic aspect the typical forms and meanings make up the centre and intermediate ones make up the periphery. In the sphere of the verb its finite forms are considered to be central, while its non-finite forms (Infinitive, Participle, Gerund) are peripheral. This is for the peripheral forms of the verb (Infinitive, Participle, Gerund) besides the verbal ones have also the characteristic peculiarities of other parts of speech. It can be illustrated by means of a scheme:              

                                                    Verb

 

 


                            Infinitive        Participle              Gerund

 

 


                               Noun          Adjective                Noun

 

          According to V.G.Gak the asymmetry of a form (F) and a content (C) can be observed in syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and semiotic aspects.  The asymmetry of a form and a content comes out when the form elements and the content elements are not equal in their quantity. In this case either the form elements are more than the content elements, or vice versa. According to Gak’s theory in syntagmatic aspect a form and a content must coincide as symmetry requires.  And this concept is described  in the following table:

          form              F1                 F2           F3

 


content         C1                 C2           C3

 

This opinion is confirmed with the help of the following example:

 

lexical  meaning            adjective            feminine            plurality

     nation-                        -al-                      -e-                      -s

 

          The violation of the parallelism in the syntagmatic aspect results in the asymmetry of the two kinds: a) synthetic; b) analytical:

          synthetic form                                                  analytical form

                                F1                F2+F3

                            C1+C2                C3

 

            In a paradigmatic aspect the correlations of units of the form and content plans are symmetric. One form corresponds to one meaning. It is illustrated in the following way:

      form plan   F1________________C1    content plan

 

                          F2________________C2

 

          As a result of  breach of this proportionality two kinds of the asymmetry can occur: polysemy and synonymy. And the scheme of the idea looks like this:

         synonymy         F1                                        C1              polysemy

    (in a broad plan)                                                               (in a broad plan)

 


                                   F2                                       C2

that is to say 

                                                                             C1

                               F1                                                       causes polysemy

                                                                            C2

                                F1

                             

                                                                                 C2     causes synonymy

                                F2

                                   

      

   The equal correlation of a form and a content results in symmetry in the semiotic aspect:          

                                                   F----------------C

         But interruption of one side of this concept of symmetry(F or C) can cause two kinds of asymmetry:

zero form          Ø______________C

 

blank form        F______________Ø

 

         In a zero form there is no sign or indicator of a meaning.

          If a form doesn’t correspond to any element of the reality a blank form may occur, i.e. the form loses its meaning and its semantic value.

          Functional asymmetry can be caused by expressing one meaning with the help of different forms and by using one form to express different meanings. For example, in the tense system of the English language a future action, and consequently a future time, can be expressed in more than one way (Future Indefinite, Future Continuous, Present Continuous and some word combinations):

I will go there tomorrow; I’m going there tomorrow; I’ll be doing my work tomorrow; I’m on the point of leaving; I’m about to leave and etc. And one form may express different meanings: He can’t see you tomorrow, he is meeting his parents and He is meeting his parents now at the airport.

          Generalizing all stated above we conclude, the philosophical categories of symmetry/asymmetry constitute a dialectical unity on the strength of which in a linguistic science they are investigated in indivisibility and interdependence. Such an approach to a consideration of these two linguistic phenomena makes for the deeper knowledge of the language structure, affords an opportunity of explaining the dynamic stability of the given structure and its willingness to changes. 

LITERATURE USED:

1.      S.O.Karcevskiy, On the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign//”Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague”, I, 1929.

2.     V.G.Gak, The theoretical grammar of the French language. – M.: Dobrosvet, 2000. P. 831.

3.     Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary, -M.: Soviet Encyclopaedia, 1980, p. 1219.

4.     Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary, -M.: Soviet Encyclopaedia, 1990. P. 682.