Article.
Оксана Солодовник
УДК 81’367.7 – 81’37
SEMANTICS OF PARCELLED SPECIFYING CONSTRUCTIONS IN DIFFERENT FUNCTIONAL
STYLES OF MODERN ENGLISH
У даній статі проаналізована семантика уточнень на рівні парцельованих
конструкцій у публіцистичному, художньому та розмовному стилях сучасної
англійської мови. Виокремлено та охарактеризовано дев’ять семантичних груп
уточнень залежно від змістового наповнення компонентів конструкцій.
Ключові слова: уточнювальна конструкція, парцельована конструкція,
конкретизація, порівняння, семантичний аналіз, функціональний стиль.
With
the development of the linguistics studies, a lot of formerly unexamined issues
are in the spotlight nowadays. One of these issues is the study of the
specifying construction which dates back to the middle of the XX century in
Soviet and eventually Post-soviet research area. The study of this relatively
new language category starts from the diligent examining of specifying
apposition by a few Soviet linguists, such as Oleksandr Peshkovskyi and Oleksiy
Rudnev. Their theories resonated with quite a few pieces of research in this
area which resulted in singling out specifying construction as a standalone
category within linguistics. Here belongs Mariya
Shatukh who suggested using the term ‘specifying construction’ for the first
time and some others. However, the given category
acquired some distinct characteristics that defined clear ambits among other
related categories only in the beginning of the XXI century. The modern
researches made by Tetyana Funtova,
Mar`yana Olenyak and Lyudmyla Zakharova provide a rather exhaustive set of
formal and semantic characteristics that enable us to single out and define a
specifying construction.
Though
quite fundamental studies on the specifying construction have been carried out,
another facet of this language phenomenon has not been examined so far. In all
the previous studies of the given category the authors considered only the
instances of specifying construction within a sentence. This subjected the
study of the category to intense scrutiny. However, the borders of studying
this category can be broadened if to consider it not within a sentence, but
within an utterance. This approach determines the novelty and relevance of the
suggested topic.
According
to Mikhail Bakhtin, an utterance is a unit in speech communication that is not
constrained by the formal limits of a sentence and that is still considered to
be semantically complete, driven by the speaker’s intentions and characterized
by the typical forms of completeness of a corresponding genre (Bakhtin). This
approach in studying the specifying construction has been chosen in the current
research since specifying relations are referred not only to the parts of a
sentence. As a matter of fact, they can relate the parts of the utterance since
specifying construction is very close to unintentional speech situations in its
nature. Hence specifying relations can characterize parcelled constructions
that enable us to speak of specifying construction within parcelled
constructions.
A
parcelled construction is defined in the given research as a way of shaping a
syntactic structure, i.e. a sentence, by means of few communicative units
(Shulzhuk 108). Another Ukrainian linguist Anatoliy Zahnitko points out that
the phenomenon of parcellation is a speech standard of social character that is
considered as a certain speech norm (Zahnitko 466). It is, though, a transitive
phenomenon that founds itself on the borderline between the language and the
speech, being a secondary speech standard and hence coexisting with the primary
standards. However, specifying relations are not the only possible relations
between the components of the parcelled constructions. Though in the given
research the attention is drawn exactly to this kind of relations.
Since
specifying construction is a speech formation, which is closely related to
logics because of its connection to human’s thought processes and unintentional
speech acts it can be treated as a logical-syntactical category. This means
that the analyzed category always consists of two components at a minimum, one
being specified and the other – specifying. In parcelled constructions the
first component is localized in the first, i.e. basic part of the construction,
and the latter corresponds with the second, i.e.
parcelled component. For example: Perhaps,
I told myself, I could present him with this actual blotter sheet. Framed?
Folded? Scrumpled up? (McCarthy
23). So, the specified component this
actual blotter sheet is placed in the basic part of the parcelled
construction while the specifying components framed, folded and scrumpled
up are localized in the parcelled components.
The
results of the analysis of such parcelled constructions with palpable
specifying relations between their components testify for the semantic
diversity of these constructions. Thus, the aim of the article is to
characterize semantic peculiarities of specifying construction within parcelled
ones in different functional styles of the modern English language.
The
empiric material examined for carrying out the current research is 235.000
symbols of the text of newspaper, belles-lettres and
colloquial functional styles of the English language.
Before
focusing on the semantic analysis of the specifying constructions represented
within the parcelled constructions it should be pointed out that there exist
different kinds of expression of specifying relation. This accounts for the
fact that the creation of the specifying relations between two notions requires
an obligatory condition: these notions must be inequivalent. The realization of
this condition excludes all the possible contextual alternatives, which can be
carried out by different means. The logical-semantic peculiarities of the
components thus define the means of excluding the contextual
alternatives. It can be detalization, generalization, comparison and
contraposition.
Specifying
parcelled constructions being the peripheral structural means demonstrate only
two ways of expressing the specifying relations on this level. Thus,
detalization as a specialized means of expressing specifying relations has
manifested the highest productivity, while the occurrence
of comparison as an unspecialized and marked means of expressing specifying
relations is rare.
All
the instances of parcelled constructions with implied specifying relations
within the material of the research reflect some realia
expressed in their components, e.g. actions, objects and their characteristics,
the place of an action etc. Hence, this makes it possible to single out some
semantic groups of the linguistic phenomenon under study.
Parcelled
constructions which specifying relations are expressed by means of detalization
are common for each of the investigated functional styles within the empirical
material. However, the productivity of
the occurrence of this kind of constructions varies.
Despite
high productivity of specifying constructions in newspaper style parcelled
constructions with implied specifying relations turn out to be least productive
in this style. The only example of this construction happens to
belong to the group of self-correcting specifying constructions referring to
some action. In other words, the action expressed by the specified component is
detalized in the specifying one by means of the author’s correction of tense
which gives additional and more significant information about the action. For
example: Britain, America’s putative best
friend in Europe, was already reading the president’s telegrams and much
more. So were the other major European powers, to whatever extent they could
manage (Economist 52).
The
belles-lettres functional style is on the contrary illustrative of the
parcelled constructions with implied specifying relations expressed with
detalization. In this functional style it is possible to distinguish between a
number of semantic groups depending on the sense bearing capacity of the components,
like:
1) Explanatory
parcelled specifying constructions that explain the details of the action
highlighting its peculiar characteristics. For example: About three days after the funeral, I cornered Madison. Confronted
her. Pinned her down (McCarthy 39).
2) Personal
parcelled specifying constructions that provide more details about a
personality. For example: The famous
philosopher, she answered. Kierkegaard or Schopenhauer or someone;
the one who said that God was dead (McCarthy
102).
3) Parcelled
specifying constructions concerned on status or profession differentiation of a
person that provide more information on his/her social status or profession to
avoid multiplicity of possible alternatives. For example: Robbed of flight, immobilized, humiliated in an almost ritual manner
(and doesn’t the inversion make the custom even crueler? Feathers first, then pitch!), they become instant
martyrs – and, in so becoming, are infused with all the pathos and nobility of tragic
heroes. Living Pompeiians! Victims of the oil Gorgon (McCarthy 176).
4) Qualitative
parcelled specifying constructions that bring out the object’s additional
quality to supplement to the quality in the specified component of the
construction. For example: I started
seeing the Project as nefarious. Sinister. Dangerous. In fact, downright
evil (McCarthy 47).
5) Parcelled
specifying constructions of place used to provide additional, more detailed
information about the locality mentioned in the utterance and to complement
spatial coordinates. For example: One
evening, a few years ago, I found myself stuck in Turin. Not in the city,
but the airport: Torino-Caselle (McCarthy
14).
6) Parcelled
specifying constructions of object detalization are aimed at pointing out the additional
characteristics or description of an inanimate object. What makes this semantic
group distinct from the other groups is the fact that the specified component
is expressed by a noun to denote an object and the specifying component is
expressed by an attribute, attributive phrase or attributive clause, meaning
that the components of the construction do not perform the same function in the
sentence. For example: Perhaps, I told
myself, I could present him with this actual blotter sheet. Framed? Folded?
Scrumpled up? (McCarthy 167).
The
colloquial style demonstrates fewer examples of the linguistic phenomenon in
question, however, it also appears to be rather illustrative of different
semantic groups, like:
1)
Explanatory constructions that provide an
explanation of the action of the utterance. For example:
I thought about trimming the top off but it felt
like I was castrating Christmas, you know? Chopping Santa’s bollocks
off (Peep Show).
2)
Personal constructions used for specifying
personality peculiarities of the human. For example: I am such a good friend. And person (Peep
Show).
3)
Status or profession differentiation parcelled
specifying constructions that are aimed at detalization of a social or
professional status of the person. For example: Well,
I-I was thinking about an introduction agency for the discerning single
professional. Business people, like us (Peep Show).
4)
Parcelled specifying constructions of degree
that bring out the degree of the action implementation or manifestation. For
example: I’ll take good care
of her. Very, very good care indeed (Peep Show).
5)
Object detalization parcelled specifying
constructions highlighting characteristics of the object
in the specified component of the construction. For example: Yes, that’s my niche. Shitting and washing (Peep
Show).
However,
it is peculiar of colloquial style that appears to be the only style
illustrative of parcelled constructions which specifying relations are
expressed by means of comparison. This kind of specifying construction first
and foremost has special language characteristics, i.e. the comparison
markers like, as if, as though and
corresponding intonation peculiar of specification. The results of the analysis
testify for the only one semantic group of this kind of specifying
constructions in colloquial style, they are the parcelled specifying
constructions of manner, i.e. those providing information regarding the manner
of an action expressed in the specified component by means of comparison. For
example: Are we doing a deal? A
grubby deal? Like oilmen or corrupt councillors?
(Peep Show)
By
way of illustration the results of the analysis are provided in the following
table:
Table 1.
Specifying Parcelled Constructions Semantic
Groups Quantitative Correlation
in Newspaper, Belles-lettres, and Colloquial
Styles of the English Language
item No.
|
Semantic Group
|
Newspaper Style
|
Belles-lettres Style
|
Colloquial Style
|
Detalization
|
Comparison
|
Detalization
|
Comparison
|
Detalization
|
Comparison
|
1.
|
2.
|
3.
|
4.
|
5.
|
6.
|
7.
|
8.
|
1
|
Self-correcting
|
1
(100%)
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
2
|
Explanatory
|
–
|
–
|
2
(15%)
|
–
|
1
(12,5%)
|
–
|
3
|
Personal
|
–
|
–
|
1
(8%)
|
–
|
1
(12,5%)
|
–
|
4
|
Status
or profession differentiation
|
–
|
–
|
2
(15%)
|
–
|
1
(12,5%)
|
–
|
5
|
Qualitative
|
–
|
–
|
3
(23%)
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
6
|
Place
|
–
|
–
|
1
(8%)
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
7
|
Object
detalization
|
–
|
–
|
4
(31%)
|
–
|
4
(50%)
|
–
|
8
|
Degree
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
1
(12,5%)
|
–
|
9
|
Manner
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
2
(100%)
|
|
Total
|
1
(100%)
|
–
|
13
(100%)
|
–
|
8
(100%)
|
2
(100%)
|
Thus,
parcelled specifying constructions are not a prevailing type of specifying
construction compared to the specifying constructions within one sentence.
However, the results of the analysis of the factual material attest to the fact
that the numerous examples of the former are sufficient enough not only to
differentiate them as one of the ways of specifying constructions formation,
but also to arrange them into semantic groups in regard with the meaning of
their components. The least illustrative of semantic groups style appears to be
the newspaper style and the most illustrative is the belles-lettres functional
style, whereas the colloquial style is marked by the examples of comparative
specifying constructions. The belles-letters style, thus, proves to be more
conducive for using specifying constructions as the author has time to prepare
the statement and enjoys the most freedom in expressing his thoughts whilst the
newspaper style is more restricting. Another reason for the newspaper style
demonstrating low productivity of specifying parcelled constructions relates to
the fact that the newspaper style is aimed at delivering clear-cut and blunt
information. The style is formulaic and rather conventional with least possible
instances of figurality or ambiguity that simplifies perception of the
information on the first try. The belles-lettres style, however, is aimed at
stirring up reader’s sensitive perception presupposing that fiction literature
can be consumed as a relaxing leisure time activity. Consequently, such peripheral and unconventional
means as a specifying parcelled construction is characteristic rather of the
belles-lettres style than of the newspaper one. The colloquial style in its turn is aimed at promptness
of the phrasing thus it turns out to be not particularly illustrative of the
category in question. Still it would not be amiss to mention that all
peculiarities are surely dependent on the personal style of the author and
his / her skills of using the language.
References.
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. "Problema rechevyh
zhanrov."Sbornik sochinenij. Vol.
5: Raboty 1940-1960 gg. Moskva: Russkie slovari, 1996. 159-206. Web. 23 Mar.
2017.
Funtova, Tetyana. Lohiko-syntaksychna katehoriya utochnennya v
suchasniy rosiyskiy movi. Diss. Tavriyskyy natsionalnyy universytet im.
V.I.Vernadskoho, 2002. Simferopol: n.p., 2002. Print.
Olenyak, Mar’yana. Semantyko-syntaksychni funktsiyi utochnennya v
anhliyskiy, ukrayinskiy ta polskiy movakh. Diss. DonNU, 2011. Donetsk:
n.p., 2011. Print.
Peshkovskij, Aleksandr. Russkij sintaksis v nauchnom osveshhenii.
Moskva: Uchpedgiz, 1956. Print.
Rudnev, Aleksej. Sintaksis sovremennogo russkogo jazyka.
Moskva: Vyssh. shk., 1968. Print.
Shatukh, Marija. "Utochnjajushhie chleny predlozhenija kak osobaja
sintaksicheskaja kategorija."Russkij jazyk v shkole 1959:
31-35. Print.
Shulzhuk, Kalenyk. Syntaksys ukrainskoi movy. Akademiia:
Kyiv, 2004. Print.
Zahnitko, Anatoliy. Teoretychna hramatyka ukrayins'koyi movy:
Syntaksys. Donets'k: DonNU, 2001. Print.
Zakharova, Ljudmila. Obosoblennye vtorostepennye chleny
predlozhenija so znacheniem utochnenija v sovremennom russkom literaturnom
jazyke. Diss. Armavirskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogicheskij universitet,
2008. Armavir: n.p., 2008. Print.
List of Sources:
McCarthy, Tom. Satin Island: a novel. London: Vintage, 2016.
Print.
Peep Show: series 7. Channel 4 DVD, 2010.
Transcript.
The Economist, 2015:
Volume 417, Number 8969. Print.
Надійшла до редакції 24 березня 2017 року.
|