Филологические науки/3. Теоретические и методологические проблемы исследования языка

Candidate of Philological Sciences O. Amirova

Undergraduate E. Duinamalieva

Bashkir State Pedagogical University named after M.Akmulla

Onomasiological Approach of Language Research in Investigation of Linguistic Concepts

There is some evidence that we all have the same universal and innate basic notions as an experienced need which leads to a search for the term in the language used in our environment. These are compared to Sapir’s “absolutely essential concepts … that must be expressed if language is to be a satisfactory means of communication” [Sapir 1949: 93; qtd in Wierzbicka 1996: 17]. There is a kind of “readiness for meaning,” classes of meaning “to which human beings are innately tuned and for which they actively search.” , “…the meanings of most words differ from language to language, that they are ‘cultural artefacts’, reflecting aspects of the cultures that have created them.” [Wierzbicka 1996: 18] Even Chomsky says that ordinary dictionary definitions do not come close to characterizing the meaning of word.

The empirical scope of lexical semantics covers different fields of linguistics, such as semasiology and onomasiology both structural and pragmatic, qualitative and quantitative, diachronic and synchronic. Let us have a closer look at each of the above mentioned disciplines. Semasiology considers the isolated word and the way its meanings are manifested, while onomasiology looks at the designations of a particular concept. In other words, the distinction between semasiology and onomasiology equals the distinction between meaning and naming: semasiology takes its starting point in the word as a form and studies the meanings that the word can occur with; onomasiology takes its starting point in a concept and investigates different expressions the concept can be named by. [Geeraerts 2010: 58]

Onomasiology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the question "how do you express X?" It is in fact most commonly understood as a branch of lexicology, the study of words (although some apply the term also to grammar and conversation). Onomasiology, as a part of lexicology, starts from a concept which is taken to be prior (i.e. an idea, an object, a quality, an activity etc.) and asks for its names. The opposite approach is known as semasiology: here one starts with a word and asks what it means, or what concepts the word refers to.

The traditional structuralist conception of onomasiology deals with the study of semantically related expressions (to look – to glance – to have a glance) and basically answers the question: what are the relations among the alternative expressions. The pragmatic conception of onomasiology deals with the actual choices made from among the set of related expressions and basically answers the question: what factors determine the choice for one or the other alternative? So the distinction between structural and pragmatic onomasiology can be defined as the distinction between an investigation of structure and the investigation of use.

The distinction between qualitative and quantitative aspects of semantic structure can be extrapolated to onomasiology. The qualitative aspect then takes the following form: ‘What kind of semantic relations hold between the lexical items in a lexicon?’ The outcome, clearly, is an investigation into various kinds of lexical structuring: field relationships, antonymy, synonymy. The quantitative question takes the following onomasiological form: are there any differences in the probability that one word rather than another one will be chosen for designating things of reality [Geeraerts 2010: 28].

If the semantic value of a word is determined by the mutual relationships between all the lexical items in a lexical field, how do we get started? If A determines B, and B at the same time determines A, how do we avoid circularity? Distinctiveness as such, as an abstract principle, does not get us very far with the actual description of semantic values. Such a description requires an identification of the substance of the field: you cannot really describe the way in which language carves up the extralinguistic world unless you invoke some real conceptual content, like gender, lineage, and generation in the field of kinship terms, or social differences and types of skills in Trier’s field of intellectual terms. But how then should that conceptual content be rendered? Componential analysis provides a descriptive model for semantic content, based on the assumption that meanings can be described on the basis of a restricted set of conceptual building blocks - the semantic ‘components’ or ‘features’ [Geeraerts 2010: 70].

Our practical onomosiological research covers the investigation of the concept of ‘managing the company’ and analyzing verbal means which may introduce the said concept. Thus, by studying dictionary entries we have come to the conclusion that the concept under analysis may be expressed by the following synonymic set: run, manage, administer, supervise and operate.

1. Run

a) to control and organize something such as a business, organization, or event (Macmillan dictionary 2002);

b) to develop rapidly in some specific direction of a business (Merriam dictionary 2003);

c) to direct a business or activities of a company (Collins dictionary 2010).

2. Manage

a) to direct or carry on business or company (Merriam dictionary 2003)

b) to direct or be in charge of (Collins dictionary 2010);

3. Administer

a) to manage the operation of (something, such as a company or government) (Merriam dictionary 2003);

b) to be in charge of (a business, an organization, etc.) (Macmillan dictionary 2002);

c) to carry on, to govern or regulate a business, a company (Collins dictionary 2010).

4. Supervise

a) to be in charge of (a company, a business, etc.) (Merriam dictionary 2003);

b) to direct, manage, or carry on a business or a company (Macmillan dictionary 2002);

5. Operate

a) to manage, control the functioning of (a business) (Collins dictionary 2010);

b) to have control of or be in charge of (something, such as a business, department, program, etc.) (Merriam dictionary 2003);

с) to direct, run, or pursue, carry on (a business, system, etc) (Macmillan dictionary 2002).

Thus, the semantic structure of synonyms under analysis can be represented by the following components: to control, to organize, to direct, to be in charge of, to regulate, to carry on a business, to develop rapidly a business/a company [Macmillan dictionary 2002; Merriam dictionary 2003; Collins dictionary 2010].

On the second stage of our research we referred to the British National Corpus to reveal the actual usage of the considered words. The analysis we have undertaken shows that in 70% of occurrences the concept manage a company is expressed by the verbal lexeme run, for example: Such errors in judgment are sometimes made when owners run companies by their own privately, for whom personal cash flow problems often impact their companies. The verb manage is used in about 14%: He doubted very much that he’d be able to manage that company’. In 13% of examples the concept manage a company is expressed by the verb operate as in the example: Many independent owners operate companies in different federal territories and actually benefit them. The analyzed concept is rendered by the verb supervise in 2%, for example: Do family relations with other persons who are members of the management bodies to supervise the company affect financial and economic activities of the company. Finally, there are almost no examples with the lexeme administer – only 1%. We could detect such sentences as: They should be closely aligned with the type and duration of the function performed, easy to administer the company itself.

Eventually we can conclude that the verb manage is used in the sense of "to control a particular sphere, to develop the company from the inside, to make a creative approach". The verb run is used more in the general meaning "to manage the entire company, to lead, to be the owner." The verb administrate is the rarest in use and focuses on such a sense as "to control as a ranking institution". The verb operate implies "control under certain conditions or principles". The verb supervise stands somehow apart from the rest of the synonyms with the senses of "watching, observing the work of others, controlling.

Literature:

1. Geeraerts Dirk, Theories of Lexical semantics. –New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2010. – P. 341.

2. Wierzbicka Anna, Semantics. Primes and Universals. – New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. - P. 512

3. Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh edition. New York: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate, 2003. - P. 1664

4. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. International Edition. Oxford: Macmillan Education, 2002. - P. 1744

5. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. Tenth edition. – London: HarperCollins, 2010. - P. 1920