Филологические
науки/ 7. Язык, речь, речевая коммуникация
Morel Morel D.A.,
candidate of philology
Belgorod branch of Modern Academy for
Humanities, Russia
Potential semes in the French metaphorical nomination of human food
Lexical meaning is traditionally considered as a complex,
structured, intentional category
(e.g. [8: 146; 16: 31-35;
18: 133-134; 1: 105-106; 23: 44; 11: 76-77; 18: 19; 26; 21; 22; 12]).
According to O. A. Mikhaylova’s research there are two main approaches
to the problem of the lexical meaning’s structure in the modern linguistics: the
differential approach (L. Hjelmslev, J.
J. Katz, A. Wierzbicka, Y. D. Apresyan et al.) and the integral one (D. L. Bolinger, M. V. Nikitin, I. A. Sternin et al.)
[12: 14-16].
The first one represents the lexical meaning as an amount of some
distinguishing characters (semes, semantic components, primitives, etc.) which
are necessary and sufficient to oppose one meaning to another.
The representatives of the second approach (I. A. Sternin, C. A.
Perfetti) consider the lexical meaning as unlimited, having indistinct, diffuse
border and countless semantic components manifesting themselves in different situations (see: [1:
179-180]).
It has been proved long since the lexical meaning is not a simple list of semantic components [ibid., p.
8]. It is widely believed now that semes do not exist separately being united into
a comprehensive whole by the logically pellucid system of relations. Linguists
traditionally consider hierarchical relations of subordination, especially
genus-species ones [16].
One of the generally recognized principles of the lexical meaning
structuring is three-layer hierarchy proposed by B. Pottier and developed by R.
Galisson, A. J. Greimas, V. G. Gak and S. D. Katznelson [33; 32; 31; 4; 3; 7].
This model provides for distinguishing among categorical (generic),
differential (specific, identifying) and potential (virtual) semes. The last
ones forming the lowest level of the lexical meaning structure become apparent in
the communication acts [3: 87-90], so they do not belong to semantic invariant
and they are not manifested in the dictionaries’ definitions.
Starting with works of Z. I. Khovanskaya, L. M. Shashkin, T. K.
Tcheremukhina [24; 25; 28; 27] we have drawn up a multilayer hierarchical model
of the lexical meaning. Such a model provides for distinguishing among semantic
components of five macrolevels or strata: the stratum of categorical
semes (SCS) – the top level in the semantic structure, the strata of generic
(SGS), differential (SDS), potential (SPS) and individual (SIS) semes (for more
details see: [14]). The first three strata form the invariant of lexical
meaning (“vocabulary meaning”), the last ones constitute the variant part
actualizing in the acts of communication and nomination.
The components of SPS have the higher ontological status consequently
the larger extent of generalization (which fits differential semes) than that
of SIS. But in spite of that potential semes cannot be included into SDS
(neither into its kernel part like denotative components nor into its periphery
like the components of stylistic value – see: [24]), inasmuch as they are
facultative, virtual, being not part of the lexical meaning’s invariant.
It should be noted that our interpretation of potential and individual
semes and discrimination between them differ from traditionally adopted
comprehension of potential components (see: [ibid., p. 112]). On the other hand
such an interpretation enables to bring SPS into correlation with Ch.
Fillmore’s “presupposition” [30] (cf.: [24: 105, 114], where presupposition is
treated as categorical components of lexical meaning) and with G. I. Kustova’s “implication”
(not to be confused with a logical term) [9: 39].
Potential semes play a noticeable part in processes of secondary
nomination [10: 111, 113], their regular use in the processes of
metaphorization is especially pointed out [1: 68; 28].
It should be noted that the contribution of SIS’
semes to metaphoric transfer processes comes most likely to individual metaphors
[1: 178] and neologisms. It is apparently determined by the fact that such
semes do not have characteristics of SPS’ semes by nature: they are neither of
common knowledge nor applicable to a representative part or to the totality of
objects of a class in question (see in this connection: [19: 59-60]).
In our research we have just adverted to the metaphors' part in the
development of the French macroconcept “NOURRITURE (food)” and of its
lexicalizing means system [13]. The objective of the present paper is to
examine the part of SPS’ semes in the metaphorization processes which provide
for the dynamics of the aforementioned concept and system.
Speaking about the metaphor we subscribe to the opinion of I. A.
Richards, M. Black who considered it as a semantically dual entity [34; 29] (see
also: [15]). An image component is an integral part of a metaphorical
denomination’s meaning [29: 167] being positioned at its periphery [24]. We are
tend to consider an image component like complex entity, a macrocomponent. It
includes into its inner structure some semes of motivating denomination
according to which it is a) associated with the denotative kernel of motivated
denomination’s lexical meaning, b) opposed to the latter (see: [15]). We are of
opinion that the existence of an image as the stylistic value’s component requires
the obligatory availability of semes
with both mentioned functions in its
structure [ibid., p. 23-24].
As one of results of our earlier research [14]
we have drawn the following conclusions.
1. The actualization of potential semes
occurs in the course of the secondary nomination processes. The revelation of
these semes using the lexicographical material is possible only when the
lexical meaning (more precisely denotative kernel) structures of motivating and
motivated denominations are confronted. SPS’ semes are implicit in respect to the
vocabulary entry text and they could be deduced on basis of known semes forming
SDS (or SGS) of motivated denominations (or motivating ones, but it is rarely
indeed – e.g. ‘ragougnasse’).
2. As a result of secondary nomination
processes potential (to the motivating denomination’s meaning) semes are
upgraded to differential and even generic ones in the motivated denomination’s
meaning (more precisely in its denotative kernel). The potential semes’ upgradeability
to differential level is typical to both neutral denominations (e.g.
‘pâture’) and those with stylistic value (e.g. ‘mangeaille’). As for
their upgrade to generic level it reveals itself only in case of neutral
denominations (e.g. ‘provision’).
3. An image component could include the
motivating denomination’s semes of different levels of abstraction: from
categorical to potential. The inclusion of the last ones is more typically
denominations with stylistic value which are derived from denominations of
admittedly inedible objects unappropriated for eating (e.g. ‘allumette’ (←
‘match’), ‘barquette’ (← ‘small boat’), ‘couronne’ (← ‘crown’),
‘ficelle’ (← ‘cord’), ‘pistolet’ (← ‘pistol’)).
4. The undertaken research has shown that
an image component may include categorical, generic, differential and potential
semes of motivating denomination for opposing itself to the denotative kernel’s
semes, but it may include only categorical, generic and differential semes for
associating with the kernel.
The further examination has made clear that the aforesaid models of the
lexical material dynamics are rather inconsistent with revealed semantic
processes passing in the course of the metaphorical nomination. Such a
collision of early models and detected facts of language constitutes the issue
of the present paper.
This problem became the subject of much study which led us to shape the
following summary.
1. One of frequent results of metaphorical nomination is the
inclusion of the motivating denomination’s potential semes into the motivated
one’s lexical meaning structure. It may occur in two ways:
a) the SPS’ semes of motivating denomination are included into the
image component located at the periphery of motivated one’s lexical meaning;
b) the SPS’ semes of motivating denomination are included into the
denotative kernel of motivated one upgrading to differential semes (e.g.
‘mangeaille’, ‘pâtée’, ‘mixture’) and concurrently the same potential semes enter into the image component.
2. In the structure of an image component the motivating
denomination’s potential semes reflect characteristics of a source object which
allow
a) its associating with another object designated by motivated
denomination (and to associate accordingly semantics of motivating and
motivated denominations);
b) its opposition to another object designated by motivated
denomination (and to oppose the image component to the denotative kernel in the
motivated denomination’s semantics).
Each SPS’ seme might be actualized only in one function: either for opposition
or for association. At the same time it exists a possibility of cases when SPS’
semes with different functions are actualized concurrently (e.g. ‘1.flûte’).
3. The “unexpectedness” of metaphors pointed out by several authors
[10: 110; 6: 63] (see also: [15: 52]) is determined by the joint action of two
factors: the suddenness of associative relations’ directions [5: 109-110, 156]
and the existence of innumerable “virtual particles” of the “semantic space of
language” [17: 88-91] – SPS’ semes.
Bibliography:
1.
Апресян, Ю.Д.
Лексическая семантика (синонимические средства языка) [Текст] / Ю.Д. Апресян. –
М.: Наука, 1974. – 367 с.
2.
Арнольд, И.В. Стилистика современного английского
языка. Стилистика декодирования [Текст] / И.В. Арнольд. – Л.: Просвещение,
1973. – 303 с.
3.
Гак, В.Г. К диалектике семантических отношений в
языке [Текст] / В.Г. Гак // Принципы и методы семантических исследований: Сб.
статей. – М.: Наука, 1976. – С. 73-92.
4.
Гак, В.Г. К проблеме семантической синтагматики [Текст]
/ В.Г. Гак // Проблемы структурной лингвистики. 1971. – М.: Наука, 1972. – С.
367-395.
5.
Гаспаров, Б.М. Язык, память, образ. Лингвистика языкового
существования [Текст] / Б.М. Гаспаров. – М.: “Новое литературное обозрение”,
1996.– 352 с.
6.
Иванюк, Е.М.
Метафора как средство повышенной экспрессивности в тексте И.Г. Гердера “Abhandlung uber den Ursprung der Sprache” [Текст] / Е.М. Иванюк //
Когнитивный подход к изучению языковых явлений. – Калининград: КГУ, 2000. – С.
59-67.
7.
Кацнельсон, С.Д. Типология языка и речевое
мышление [Текст] / С.Д. Кацнельсон. – Л.: Наука, 1972. – 216 с.
8.
Крысин, Л.П. Социолингвистические аспекты изучения
современного русского языка [Текст] / Л.П. Крысин. – М.: Наука, 1989. –
186 с.
9.
Кустова, Г.И. Типы производных значений и
механизмы языкового расширения [Текст] / Г.И. Кустова. – М.: Языки славянской
культуры, 2004. – 472 с.
10.
Лисицына, И.В. Звукообозначения в аспекте семантической деривации (на
материале глаголов французского языка): Дис. ... канд. филол. наук: 10.02.05 [Текст]
/ И.В. Лисицына. – Воронеж, 2007. – 142 с.
11.
Лукьянова, Н.А. Экспрессивная лексика разговорного
употребления. Проблемы семантики [Текст] /
Н.А. Лукьянова. – Новосибирск: Наука, 1986. – 230 с.
12.
Михайлова, О.А. Ограничения в лексической
семантике русского слова: Автореф. дис. …д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.01 [Текст] /
О.А. Михайлова. – Екатеринбург, 1998. – 30 с.
13.
Морель Морель, Д.А. Метафора в развитии
французских концептов: основные направления [Текст] / Д.А. Морель Морель //
Актуальные проблемы коммуникации и культуры: междунар. сб. науч. тр. – М. –
Пятигорск: ПГЛУ, 2007. – Вып. 5. – С. 50-58.
14.
Морель Морель, Д.А. Многоуровневость структуры лексического значения (на
материале наименований французского языка, соотносящихся с концептуальной
сферой “Nourriture”):
Дис. … канд. филол. наук: 10.02.05 [Текст] / Д.А. Морель Морель. – Белгород,
2004. – 242 с.
15.
Москвин, В.П. Русская метафора: Очерк
семиотической теории [Текст] / В.П. Москвин. – 3-е изд. – М.: Изд-во ЛКИ, 2007.
– 184 с.
16.
Никитин, М.В. Лексическое значение в слове и
словосочетании [Текст] / М.В. Никитин. – Владимир: ВГПИ, 1974. – 222 с.
17.
Попова, З.Д. Очерки по когнитивной лингвистике [Текст]
/ З.Д. Попова, И.А. Стернин. – Воронеж: Истоки, 2001. – 191 с.
18.
Селиверстова, О.Н. Об объекте лингвистической
семантики и адекватности ее описания [Текст] / О.Н. Селиверстова // Принципы и
методы семантических исследований: Сб. статей. – М.: Наука, 1976. – С.
119-146.
19.
Скляревская, Г.Н. К вопросу о метафоре как объекте
лексикографии [Текст] / Г.Н. Скляревская // Современная русская лексикография.
1981. – Л.: Наука, 1983. – С.53-63.
20.
Слесарева, И.П. Проблемы описания и преподавания
русской лексики [Текст] / И.П. Слесарева. – 2-е изд., испр. – М.: Рус. яз.,
1990. – 174 с.
21.
Солодуб, Ю.П. Сопоставительный анализ структуры
лексического и фразеологического значений [Текст] / Ю.П. Солодуб // Научные
доклады высшей школы. Филологические науки. – 1997. – № 5. – С. 43-54.
22.
Солодуб, Ю.П. Структура лексического значения [Текст]
/ Ю.П. Солодуб // Научные доклады высшей школы. Филологические науки. – 1997. –
№ 2. – С. 54-66.
23.
Стернин, И.А. Проблемы анализа структуры значения
слова [Текст] / И.А. Стернин. – Воронеж: Изд-во ВГУ, 1979. – 156 с.
24.
Хованская, З.И. Стилистика французского языка [Текст]
/ З.И. Хованская. – М.: Прогресс, 1984. – 344 с.
25.
Черемухина, Т.К. К проблеме сопоставления языковой и речевой номинации:
Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук: 10.02.05 [Текст] / Т.К. Черемухина. – М.,
1980. – 24 с.
26.
Шаховский, В.И. Типы значений эмотивной лексики [Текст]
/ В.И. Шаховский // Вопросы языкознания. – 1994. – № 1. – С. 20-25.
27.
Шашкин, Л.М. К вопросу о многоуровневой
организации структуры значения номинативных единиц (на материале французского
языка) [Текст] / Л.М. Шашкин // Единство системного и функционального анализа
языковых единиц. Сб. науч. трудов. – Белгород: Изд-во БГУ, 1996. – Вып. 2.
– С. 193-200.
28.
Шашкин, Л.М.
Оценочная номинация во французском языке (на материале обозначений лица по
признаку отрицательной морально-этической оценки его отношения к
материально-имущественным ценностям): Дис. … канд. филол. наук: 10.02.05 [Текст]
/ Л.М. Шашкин. – М., 1987. – 185 с.
29. Black, M. Models and Metaphors:
Studies in language and philosophy [Текст] / M. Black. –
30. Fillmore, Ch.J. Types of
Lexical Information [Текст] / Ch.J. Fillmore // Studies in Syntax and Semantics / F. Kiefer (Ed.).
–
31. Galisson, R. Analyse sémique,
actualisation sémique et approche du sens en méthodologie [Текст] / R. Galisson // Langue
française. – 1970. – N 8. –
32. Greimas, A.J. Sémantique structurale.
Recherche de méthode [Текст] / A.J. Greimas. – P.: Larousse, 1966. – 262 p.
33. Pottier, B. Vers une
sémantique moderne [Текст] / B. Pottier // Travaux de linguistique et de littérature. –
Strasbourg, 1964. – N 1. – P. 45-51.
34. Richards, I.A. The Philosophy
of Rhetoric [Текст] / I.A.
Richards. – N.Y.: