4

Lecture 7. The semantic paradigm of a linguistic sign

Lead-in: The students should comment the main trends in meaning study as to their adequacy/ deficiency; to
demonstrate their competence in relation to the mechanism of meaning structuring; to be aware of the basic scheme
of a semantic paradigm of a lexical unit and extrápolate it on the linguistic signs of a different linguistic status.

Key words: semantic paradigm; conceptuality of a linguistic sign; surrogationalism/substitution;

referential/communicative/ conceptual approachton a meaning study; cognitive enthropy;
denotate/significate/implicate; semantic load; Factual/Conceptual/Implicit information; extralinguistic entities in the
world; sense/reference; semantic triangle.

Objectives and tasks of the lecture:

1.Conceptual nature of a word;

2.The main trends in the meaning study;

3.Referential approach to the meaning study;

4.Communicative theories on the meaning;

5. Semantic Paradigm of a Lexical Unit;

8. Semantic Paradigm of a Text.

Material for lecture 7:

§1. The main argument of cognitive theories in relation to the lexical meaning is recognition of its conceptual
nature. That is, meaning is not necessarily reference to the entity or relation in some real or possible world. Instead,
meaning corresponds with a concept held in the mind which is based on personal understanding. And these two
positions had not been equally admitted by the representatives of semantic studies what was followed by different
interpretation of this object of investigation.

There had been declared a great lot of different positions as to the interpretation of the meaning structure of a word.
But all of them, irrespective of the period of their appearance, may be reduced to the three most known in semantic
studies, which, in their turn to a less or more degree exerted the influence on all other theoretical views. It would be
justified here to note that the main principle of them, used in semantic investigations, was that of
‘surrogationalism’(Roy Harris, an American scholar, applied it in his analysis of semantic theories beginning with
the Ancient times) or, more clear in present-day linguistics, ‘substitution‘, i.e. the act of so-called substitution ‘thing
→ name’.

1.1. Referential theories in which there was postulated ‘ direct relation’ (stat pro) between the thing and the name /
B. Russel. L. Wittgenshtein/, with the conceptual sphere in the processes of cognition and nomination being left
aside. Moreover, into analysis there had been involved only concrete nouns, with all other parts of speech being
deprived of the right to have any meaning at all;

1.2.Communicative or behavioral theories (with the accent upon the human behavior and situation
/Leonard Bloomfield, an American scholar in linguistics/. Here is interesting to see that the meaning of a
word to his opinion is reduced to and bound only with ‘living facts’ of language. He suggested so called
‘communicative principle’ in realizing the semantic task of a unit in a speech chain as ‘its usage’.
According to him in a scheme: ‘addresser → signal → receiver → reaction’ , ‘reaction’ of a
receiver is to be regarded as ‘meaning’ in a given situation. Such position is deficient in that sense that
the informative load of a linguistic sign as a unit of language system is fully excluded and paradigmatic
property of a linguistic sign as its asymmetry ignored. In case with such approach all metaphoric usages
could be regarded as the separate units, independent of each other.
1.3.Conceptual theories based on semantic triangle, suggested by G.Frege, C.Ogden, R. Palmer and
recognized by all the linguistic world of today, involve into the sphere of analysis the mechanism,
governing the processes of thinking, i.e. human consciousness , which, as we now know, makes part and
parcel of language ontology.

4
 5

The differences in these theories may be reduced to the way of presenting the extralinguistic entities: 1/
either with taking into consideration human thought or 2/ by establishing direct relations between the
facts of reality and linguistic signs or 3/ to take into consideration exclusively the situation.
1.4. Discussing the fundamentals of cognitive semantics we could see that in communicative acts alongside the
compositionality as a paradigmatic content of a word it is very important to take into consideration pragmatic
elements like context and intention. Only on such condition is possibly to diagnose properly the received message.

To conclude this paragraph we can state that the semantic triangle by G. Frege appeared to be most reliable and
adequate scheme reflecting the processes of cognition, thinking and designation: 1/the object of reality, 2/the
meaning as a conceptual reality and 3/a linguistic sign as a bearer of the information in every separate act of speech.
The first position means our reference to the real things as the extralinguistic entities in the world irrespective of
their either material or spiritual essence; the second position - the reflection of these referents in a conceptual
sphere of a human mind and the latter position - the registration of these, now conceptual entities with the help of
linguistic signs – names, nominative units.

In our real life all our experiences are tailed with the perceptions of objective and subjective order which are, in
their turn, reflected in a potential meaning structure / linguistic meaning/ of this or that linguistic sign. What is to
be concluded here is that in every particular speech situation a nominative unit may be realized in its first, primary,
meaning or actualize one of its more generalized meanings / speaker’s meaning/ which all the same make the
potential of its content. In this connection it is justified to distinguish the following notions reference and sense.

1.5.Sense is the way words are related (semantic connections) to each other within the language system and here
take the foreground various aspects of its potential meaning structure, in other words, the thought they express.

Reference is the way linguistic expressions refer to the external world as extralinguistic reality, i.e. refer to the
special facts of the world: She bought a car.: reference of expression = the object / phenomenon/ event/ situation it
represents.

In Saussure’s understanding the meaning of linguistic expressions derives from two sources; a/ language that they
are a part of; b/ the world that they describe, where a/ is the conceptual sphere and b/ the referential sphere.

1.6. Almost the same can we see in the position of L.Vygotsky, an outstanding Russian scientist, in his treating the
meaning as “ the unity of generalization, communication and thinking”. This viewpoint corresponds to the idea of a
semantic triangle in which the logical component is inseparable from the compositional meaning structure. The
structured character of meaning is explained by the fact that the image of no object or phenomenon can appear as an
isolated imprint of reality. First they are reflected in human mind in infinite multitude of forms and states making
the whole – the nominative meaning of a word, i.e. the meaning which stands behind the name. Either generalized or
concrete meaning is actualized in speech acts what depends on a given context or situatio. Accordingly these are
functions which make the inner, paradigmatic essence of any linguistic sign - denotative, significative and
implicative, while the pragmatic, extralinguistic function provides the semantic choice for actualizing a certain
linguistic sign in a speech.

§2. The notion of a semantic paradigm seems to us most preferable in investigation the meaning structure of a
linguistic sign, presented with the components of a different degree of generalization, known as denotate, significate
and implicate; or extensional, intensional, and implicational. Now it is common to distinguish the semantic load of a
lexical unit using the two criteria: 1/ internal/paradigmatic taking into account all lexico–semantic paradigm:
( D+S+I) where denotative, significative and implicative components make lexical – potential- meaning , i.e.
content proper and 2/ external/ syntagmatic criterium which exposes conditions (context, distribution) and character
of semantic explication: either D or S or I plus pragmatic factor in the course of a communicative act. By other
words every new meaning takes shape on the basis of historically developed meaning assigned to a given unit as an
imprint of some fragment of reality. The lexical meaning potentially reflects all possible aspects of using a
linguistic sign in question including all attributive and concomitant characteristics disposed in the implicative sphere
which makes some prognostic zone for possible acts of nomination. The process of nomination representing the two
spheres of language activity is exactly the step taking part in creating some new – nominative meaning involving all
extralinguistic factors into the mechanism of labeling the real facts of life including all the objects of introspection
(emotions, feelings, evaluation of reality, etc.). In every new nomination makes possible the realities of the
objective world are reflected.

The aura of associations accompanies every lexical unit being implied if not strictly defined. When the relation
between sign and referent is clear and unambiguous we can say that the one denotes the other, i.e. denotative
component of meaning has been realized. When, however, the sign evokes in addition various associations
5
 6

(psychological, social) the connotative components (significative and implicative in fact) take their foreground. By
denotative component of meaning( denotative meaning) we understand reflection in a human mind first, primary
experiences of the outside world. By significative meaning we take more generalized image of the object in question
with all the features pertaining to this object. And, at last, by implicative meaning we perceive all that diagnostic
zone, all that background upon which the new nuance of meaning tool its place.

§ 2. Taking into account the isomorphism of syntagmatic relationships on all language levels it is possible to
presuppose the elements of similarity in the meaning structure in the units of a different language status.

In modern linguistics a text as a unit of a highest level of language hierarchy is regarded as a nominative unit, i.e.
fulfilling the nominative function alongside its communicative function. Hence, as a unit of nomination it must be a
bearer of meaning. And here it seems justified to turn our attention to the methods of analysis of lexical nominative
units in order to see and substantiate certain correlations in text and word meaning structure.

We cannot deny that the idea of any text, irrespective of its structure and functional characteristics, presents its
conceptual basis. So the conceptuality of the text is one of its dominant categories.

Professor Galperin suggested to distinguish three types of text information: a/ Factual information [FI], b/
Conceptual information[CI] and c/ Implicative information [II].

Factual information comprises the data on facts, events, processes, which take or took place, or will take place in
this world, either real or imaginable. Such information may present different hypotheses of the scientists, their
views, facts comparisons, their characteristics, possible variant of solution the problems put in this or that relation
to the facts, etc. But in all cases this information is concrete and verbally explicit. In semantic representation it may
be equaled to direct, objective meaning as a reflection of human experience.

Factual information being explicit in its nature corresponds with the notion of a denotative meaning in a lexico-
semantic paradigm of a word.

Conceptual information gives to a reader individual evaluation of phenomena, their cause-and-effect relationships
and their significance in social, political, economic and cultural life of a given people, described by the author with
the means of factual information. Such information is extracted from the whole text and makes the creative vision
of all facts and relationships by the author.

Conceptual information is not always expressed explicitly and may be interpreted differently. So, the difference
between FI and CI is, accordingly, the information of a routine character and the information of aesthetic and
artistic character when, with perceiving the routine information we come to the reality of two types – real and
imaginable. Conceptual information, predominantly, characterizes the texts of artistic prose, though may be
presented in scientific-popular texts too but not frequently. Of great importance in realizing the author’s ideas is a
significant portion of a reader’s thought on the information of the text in question. So, conceptual information is a
complex notion and cannot be reduced to the topical idea of a whole work: it is the author’s intention plus its
interpretation by a reader. This type of information puts off the aesthetic and cognitive entropy.

Implicit information is an information of a latent type and may be received only on the basis of a factual and
conceptual information due to the ontological ability of linguistic signs as asymmetry, i.e. the ability to develop
associative and connotative meanings and include all the concomitant information.

Implicit information is optional, not in all cases it may be realized by a reader and sometimes demands his special
erudition. Being present in a text this type of information creates some textual polyphony. If to compare such
interpretation of a semantic structure of the text with that of a lexical unit, we can see that semantically they are
really isomorphic, as the semantic paradigm of a lexical unit is the sum of the denotate, significate and implicate as
the components of meaning.

Now let’s try to analyze different pieces of information in English texts.

«...Ranged on benches down the sides of the room, the eighty girls sat motionless and erect: a quaint assemblage
they appeared, all with plain locks combed from their faces, not curl visible. In brown dresses, made high in
surrounding by narrow tucker about the throat, with kittle pockets of Holland (...) tied in front of their frocks, and
designed to serve the purpose of a work-bag: all too wearing woolen stockings and country made shoes, fastened
with brass bucklers. Above twenty of clad in this costume were full-grown girls, or rather young women. It suited
them ill, and gave an air of oddity even to the prettiest» (Ch. Bronte «Jane Eyre»).

6
 7

Alongside the factual information a reader can see some conceptual information ( dutiful, modest girls who
wouldn’t venture to object).

One more example: «Recently in the Palace of City Theater there was performed a new play of young playwright
Frank Bosom. The city was preparing to this great event during the whole month: crowd of people near the theater
was changing by another curious ones who were longing to see the play. But the ending of this great show was
unexpected not only to actors. Instead of applauding critical audience gave the bird! Such failure was really great
event in the city!»

In a given text one can distinctly see the implicit information. Reading a phrase «gave the bird» and having no
information of the meaning as «a show of disapproval by an audience», a reader will conclude that the grateful
audience delivered a real bird to the actors, while, in fact, that meant a full flop of a play.

The following example supports the fact of actualizing information most fully in conditions of the text. The
Ozhogov’s dictionary a lexeme «зеленый» has several meanings, among which 'цвет листвы, травы',
'неопытный" (a man), 'unripe' (fruit), 'ached' (man), 'made of greens' ( green borsch, schi), etc. In a sentence «Этот
(человек) зеленый» some certain meanings are realized but it is not clear yet what feature exactly is meant. And
only on the level of the text is possible to decide upon the author’s intention: «На центральной площади города
прошел митинг под лозунгом «Наш любимый город». Наиболее впечатляющим было выступление
«зеленого», в котором он выразил яркий протест в сторону администрации завода, осудив действие
химического предприятия, повлекшее к химическому выбросу на территории города. Данное выступление
информировало общественность о грубейших нарушениях закона со стороны завода. Заканчивая свою речь,
представитель экологической организации пожелал гражданам активно участвовать в жизни города», are
meant the actions of organization now known as Green Peace.

As we could see conceptuality of a linguistic sign lies in its ontological essence and is characteristic for the units of
lexical, syntactic and suprasyntactic levels where we have to operate with the lexicon, patterns and forms of their
actualization.

2.1. Within the framework of cognitive semantics the idea of a field organization of language elements found its
development and the notion of a field was laid into the essence of such terms as prototypes, frames, nodes, schemas,
concepts, constructs understood as the units of mental and psychic resources of our consciousness and that
informational structure which reflects human experience and knowledge; operative meaningful unit of memory,
mental lexicon, conceptual system and language of a brain…,of all the world picture reflected in human psyche’.
The expression ‘world picture’ was first used by W.fon Humboldt who contributed much into such approach in
linguistics as the unity of language and thought. Though metaphoric in its essence this term is readily applied in
present-day semantic investigations. World picture is understood as our vision of reality reflected in our
consciousness. It is the global whole as a result of spiritual activity of a human in the process of his contacts with the
world and forming images of this world.

Summary

Cognitive semantics, as one of the trends, supports the conceptual nature of the meaning, which is a logical category
based on the unity of generalization, communication and thinking. This viewpoint corresponds to the idea of a
semantic triangle. In a meaning structure of the word and text we can see the traits of isomorphism.

Give your arguments to support or reject the following positions:

1. Lexical meaning is conceptual in its nature;

2. Surrogationalism’ is the main principle used in semantic theories beginning with the Ancient times;
3. Referential theories appeared to be very fruitful in future semantic investigations;
4. Communicative approach to the meaning study did not take into account such ontological property of a
linguistic sign as asymmetry;\
5. Semantic triangle as the impetus for all succeeding theories of meaning;
6. It is counterindicated to put off the pragmatic aspect of a usage in semantic studies;
7. Sense and reference are the two correlative notions;
8. The notion of a semantic paradigm is most preferable in investigation the meaning structure of a linguistic
sign;
9. To distinguish the semantic load of a lexical unit we use the two criteria;
10. Lexical meaning potentially reflects all possible aspects of using a linguistic sign in question;
7
 8

11. In every new nomination makes possible the realities of the objective world are reflected;
12. The aura of associations accompanies every lexical unit being implied if not strictly defined;
13. There are no isomorphic features in a meaning structure of the word and text.

SUPPLEMENT
(for individual work)

1.Stylistic properties of a lexicon may manifest in two ways: 1) paradigmatically, and here we deal with the set of
word classified as stylistically – charged vocabulary. There we refer to such strata of lexicon as ‘slang’, ‘dialect’
colloquial’, ‘popular’, ‘scientific’, etc. There groups of words are fixed in vocabulary as forms of speech of separate
social or professional groups. There may be borderline usages as it takes place in the districts the people of which
are the bearers of different languages. Alongside these cases in paradigmatic sphere of a lexicon we may find or
induce many archaic or new words.
2.The second way of stylistic realization of the vocabulary takes place only in the course of communication in case
of actualization semantic nuances due to the influence of the extralinguistic factors of objective and subjective type.

The first are conditioned by such phenomenon which took a name of a situation constraint, while the second
involves the pragmatic factor, relating to the feelings so as to linguistic data and social position of interlocutors. In
some linguistic works this aspect is distinguished as perlocutionary force of speech acts (Searle, Austin).

In stylistic research the second way in realization of semantic properties of the lexicon makes a deserved interest.
Among them the following figures of speech:

A metonymy, which, on losing its originality, becomes instrumental in enriching the language vocabulary and is
based on association on contiguity. It to keep in mind a semantic paradigm a lexical unit we can observe a shift to
the implicative component of meaning which reflects extralinguistic information of a unit in question. All the
concomitant events count in realizing the stylistic relevance of a unit:

Из рук моих /Ветхий Данте выпадает…

Янтарь в устах его дымился …
The pavements were all eyes and thick jostling bodies…
As a separate case of metonymy follows synecdoche with the semantic structure in which ‘the whole’ is presented
through ‘the part’, ‘big’ through ‘small’.

Все флаги в гости к нам.

Since I left you my eye is in my mind…

A synecdoche, as a variety of a metonymy, in a sentence functions as a subject or object.

I like Goya.
New Ford is better than that I had before.

A metaphor as a unit of secondary nomination is based on association of resemblance. In a semantic structure of a

unit qualified as a metaphor we can observe a semantic shift.

If to compare the metonymy and metaphor it is possible to observe that a metaphor operates on a linguistic basis
(inner form of a word) while a metonymy rests solely on the extralinguistic factors characterizing phenomena
denoted by the words when the great role belongs to realization of the implicative component of meaning. A
metaphor is a purely technical method to give new names to a class of objects by extracting a new name from the
old section. This stylistic device is presented with four types, the stylistic effect of each being different.

The first type is presented with a nominative metaphor and, making the resource of nomination, doesn’t give some
stylistic nuances of meaning. It appeals not to the intuition but gives indication, that is why its stylistic effect is
rather low if: яблоко, стрелять в яблоко; ушная раковина, ручка (чашки), the leg of the table, the apple of the
eye, the arm of the chair, the foot the hill.

A predicative or attributive metaphor lies in acquiring some ‘alien’ features: острый (ая, ое) ум, зрение, нужда,
заболевание, критики, взгляд, кризис, black night, water, heat, linen, despair, deed, curse, book, heat, sin, frost,
look, lie, moment. This type may be taken out of the simile: Растаял (как сахар в чае), ветер воет (как волк),

8
 9

время лечит the time flow (as water) the day had died, his mind wrestled heavily with the problem the river ran,
between the miles; the idea came to his mind, English comes easy to him, to take one’s attention, etc. Semantic shift
is observed from D to S (from concrete to more generalized)

One more type of a metaphor is widely known in commercial activity advertisement business the artificial character
of which is unfavorable for the stylistic device and its value is not very high. It is known as a generalizing
metaphor.

As a most stylistically important is a figurative metaphor the associative character of which is very high.

The metaphor, depending on semantic peculiarities, falls into two classes 1/ language metaphors as obsolete, stale,
hackneyed and 2/ speech metaphors as original, new, though rigid line of demarcation is hardly possible to draw.
The original metaphors tend to polysemy admitting a lot of interpretations as in ‘an awful bore’, ‘to fish for the
compliments’ and to synonymy - свинья – неблагородная; море – безмерное; These girls are an awful
responsibility.

A speech metaphor relies upon the concrete text and is always connected with it because the connotative features
work only in the framework of a given lexical set. Such connotations reflect not usual, collective vision of the
outside world but individual experience which is subjective and occasional. The differences between the two types
of a metaphor are realized in mind by intuition and revival of a stale metaphor in a text makes some peculiar stylistic
device. In Ф. Кривин there is a linguistic joke (В мире животных).

Вдали темнели берега,

Ершился лес на склоне
И кот, окрысясь на щенка,
Мышонка проворонил,
Слонялся черный таракан,
Карась с лeщом судачил,

И, как всегда, ослил баран,

Что конь весь день ишачил.

3. Semaciological analysis of a nominative unit.

A procedure of semaciological analysis in word study works very well in relation to those nominative units which
resulted the processes of semantic transposition and proves that lexical nomination is not only one-time act of
labeling the reality as it takes place in morphological transposition. This is the act that can be reproduced many
times on the same lexical material in the process of communication resulting with the new, figurative units of
secondary nomination. The result depends on that pragmatic and communicative task intended by a speaker.
To distinguish the semantic load of a lexical unit we use the two criteria [3]: 1/ internal/paradigmatic taking into
account all lexico–semantic paradigm:( D+S+I) where denotative, significative and implicative components make
lexical – potential- meaning , i.e. content proper and 2/ external/ syntagmatic criterium which exposes conditions
(context, distribution) and character of semantic explication: either D or S or I plus pragmatic factor in the course
of a communicative act.
By other words every new meaning takes shape on the basis of historically developed meaning assigned to a
given unit as an imprint of some fragment of reality. The lexical meaning potentially reflects all possible
aspects of using a linguistic sign in question including all attributive and concomitant characteristics disposed in
the implicative sphere which makes some prognostic zone for possible acts of nomination. The process of
nomination representing the two spheres of language activity is exactly the step taking part in creating some new
– nominative meaning involving all extralinguistic factors into the mechanism of labeling the real facts of life
including all the objects of introspection (emotions, feelings, evaluation of reality, etc. This process is connected
with the results of designation by means of linguistic signs presenting the natural qualities of things and
phenomena through their ideal forms-notions. The process of thinking is realized on the basis of words and
9
 10

sentences as empirical, material form of ideal reality. Every idea being materialized in a form of a word, or
sentence, or text participates in formation of a thought, passes to a receiver with all emphatic and pragmatic
peculiarities characteristic of a communicative act. With such approach to the process of nomination it is justified
to differentiate the lexical meaning proper, or syntactical meaning proper / in a form of a paradigmatic pattern/
from the nominative meaning which is a result of paradigmatic and syntagmatic interaction within the meaning
structure of the unit in question in a given speech situation. The semantic load of a linguistic unit includes all
lexico–semantic paradigm:( D+S+I) when the three components -denotative, significative and implicative - make
its potential meaning , i.e. content proper, but in a communicative act there works a syntagmatic factor which
helps to expose conditions and character of semantic explication: either denotative meaning as a representation of
a single, or significative meaning as a more generalized meaning, or implicative meaning which makes the basis
for most part of stylistic devices plus pragmatic factor in the course of communication . By other words every new
meaning takes shape on the basis of historically developed meaning assigned to a given unit as an imprint of
some fragment of reality. The content proper potentially reflects all possible aspects of using a linguistic sign in
question including all attributive and concomitant characteristics disposed in the implicative sphere which makes
some prognostic zone for possible acts of nomination.
The process of nomination representing the two spheres of language activity is exactly the step taking part in
creating some new – nominative meaning involving all extralinguistic factors into the mechanism of labeling the
real facts of life including all the objects of introspection (emotions, feelings, evaluation of reality, etc.). The
informative aspect of language is its semantic sphere, in a broad sense, and every particular realization of a
nominative unit, mostly a word, relates to this sphere providing first and foremost function of language – to
represent a human thought. Through the acts of nomination we give the names to the facts, situations and objects
of reality.
These two criteria help to diagnose 1/ is it possible to use a certain unit of language in some new, non-expected
environment /onomaciological function/ and 2/ does the presented utterance correspond to the semantic potential
of its constituents /semaciological function/. The task of a translator, for instance, presupposes simultaneous usage
of the two procedures only in a reversed order if compared with the usual speech activity. On the first stage he
realizes the message in a foreign language (semaciological analysis) and on the second stage of a communication
he gives a name (nominator) to this message in his native language (onomaciological procedure). So, the activity
of a translator may serve as a prototype of speech activity and the key to its description. The combination of the
two procedures in speech activity is extremely significant and helpful in experimental tests, especially in practice
of translation: thus, onomaciologically a speaker moves from “meaning to expression and here arises a question
what linguistic signs to choose in order to give a shape to his ideas. It is important to know here that a speaker
uses already existing inventory of a system relying on the laws of analogy which always plays an important role
in the ’preservation or redistribution of linguistic material’ [12, 20]. Another, semaciological way, presupposes
analytical procedures from sound (form) to meaning.

As it was mentioned here not once, the influence of extralinguistic reality at every given moment of nomination is
of great importance as determining the choice of language units in order to express adequately the communicative
situation so as a physical or emotional state of the speaker. /emotive, stylistic function/. The social background
plays a significant role in the acts of nomination as rendering most essential information of the people occupying
different niches in life: poor/rich, young/old, educated/non-educated/semi-educated/low-educated, etc. As a
vocabulary is not homogeneous in its composition a message may include the words of different stylistic value
what first of all depends on a role status of interlocutors. Here also would be right to emphasize the character of a
communicative act as the first signal to a nominative process: exactly in conditions of a speech act a new
nominative unit may arise, or the old one may develop its meaning in that direction which is in demand for a
given situation and does not contradict to its semantic paradigm.

The aura of associations accompanies every lexical unit being implied if not strictly defined. When the relation
between sign and referent is clear and unambiguous we can say that the one denotes the other, i.e. denotative
component of meaning is realized. When, however, the sign evokes in addition various associations
(psychological, social) the connotative components (significative and implicative in fact) take their foreground.
It makes evident, that in the process of forming a new nominative meaning a semantic load of the units to be
combined is remarkable for its predetermining role in the onomaciological procedures and its diagnostic role in
semaciological procedures. As G. Kolshansky pointed out ‘the essence of nomination lies not in the fact of
designation a thing or some relations of this thing, but in representing some abstraction as a result of a cognitive
activity of a human, abstraction reflecting dialectic opposition of the whole and the part in the course of cognitive
activity.’ These two procedures help to diagnose 1/ is it possible to use a certain unit of language in some new,
non-expected environment /onomaciological function/ and 2/ does the presented utterance correspond to the
semantic potential of its constituents /semaciological function/. The task of a translator, for instance, presupposes
10
 11

simultaneous usage of the two procedures only in a reversed order if compared with the usual speech activity. On
the first stage he realizes the message in a foreign language (semaciological analysis) and on the second stage of a
communication he gives a name (nominator) to this message in his native language (onomaciological procedure).
So, the activity of a translator may serve as a prototype of speech activity and the key to its description. The
combination of the two procedures in speech activity is extremely significant and helpful in experimental tests,
especially in practice of translation: thus, onomaciologically a speaker moves from “meaning to expression and
here arises a question what linguistic signs to choose in order to give a shape to his ideas. It is important to know
here that a speaker uses already existing inventory of a system relying on the laws of analogy which always plays
an important role in the ’preservation or redistribution of linguistic material’ [12, 20]. Another, semaciological
way presupposes analytical procedures from sound (form) to meaning. As it was mentioned several times, the
influence of extralinguistic reality at every given moment of nomination is of great importance as determining the
choice of language units in order to express adequately the communicative situation so as a physical or emotional
state of the speaker. /emotive, stylistic function/. The social background plays a significant role in the acts of
nomination as rendering most essential information of the people occupying different niches in life: poor/rich,
young/old, educated/non-educated/semi-educated/low-educated, etc.

As a vocabulary is not homogeneous in its composition a message may include the words of different stylistic
value what first of all depends on a role status of interlocutors. Here also would be right to emphasize the
character of a communicative act as the first signal to a nominative process: exactly in conditions of a speech act
a new nominative unit may arise, or the old one may develop its meaning in that direction which is in demand for
a given situation and does not contradict to its semantic paradigm.

Developing Skills in Linguistic analysis:

1 Read the supplementary text and give your arguments in favour of a semaciological analysis;

2. What linguistic construct serves as the point of departure in semaciological procedures of analysis?

3. Can we draw the parallel between such linguistic notions or constructs as a’ semantic paradigm of the word’
and ‘ the semantic paradigm of the text’?

4. What is the meaning structure of the text?

5. What do you understand by the a/ factual information? b/ conceptual information? implicit information?

6. What are the correlative semantic categories in a word to each type of the textual information?

11