Article

Name: Semasiological and onomasiological factors of meta-language commentary generation: determining the grounds for constructing a semantic typology of reflexives

Authors: Mikhail A. Kravchenko

Rostov State Transport University, Rostov on Don, Russian Federation

In the section Linguistics

Abstract:

The study follows the principles of everyday linguistics, a scientific field dedicated to examining language markers of metalanguage reflection. Specifically, it focuses on reflexives, which are text segments that convey explicit or implicit information of a metalanguage nature. Such metalanguage contexts differ significantly in structure, semantics, functionality, stylistics, and other aspects. Of relevance are the criteria for identifying a specific unit for analyzing and terminologically semanticizing reflexives. The analysis of the classifications of reflexives created by Russian linguists reveals that the semantics of reflexives is not limited to the sum of component meanings. The compilation of the semantic typology of reflexives started by defining the parameters of their semantics and identifying two categories. The first category includes the reflexives resulting from meta-linguistic reflection on a “ready-made” linguistic unit, while the second one comprises the reflexives generated through nomination. In terms of semantic theory, two distinct approaches can be observed in the formation of reflexives: semasiological and onomasiological. The semasiological approach suggests that the metalanguage tension arises between a word and its characteristics. The onomasiological approach places the metalanguage tension between the subject-conceptual domain and its designation. The semasiological factor underpins the creation of receptive reflexives, while the onomasiological factor leads to the creation of productive reflexives. The distinctive features of each category of reflexives are delineated by the conceptual dichotomies of “statics/dynamics,” “nonlinearity/linearity,” and “openness/closeness.” The study findings indicate that receptive reflexives possess static, nonlinear, and open attributes, whereas productive reflexives display dynamic, linear, and closed properties.

Keywords: metalanguage reflection, reflexive, semantic typology, semasiological factor, onomasiological factor

Bibliography:

Arutyunova N. D. Yazyk i mir cheloveka [Language and the human world]. Moscow, LRC Publishing House, 1999, I–XV, 896 p.

Bayduzh L. M. Strategii kvazinominatsiy, realizuemye v vyskazyvaniyakh s meta-pokazatelem skazhem tak [Strategies of quasi-terminations implemented in state-ments with a meta-indicator skazhem tak]. Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology. 2017, vol. 16, no. 9: Philology, pp. 59–64.

Batyukova N. A. Metayazykovye sredstva sovremennoy publitsisticheskoy i khudozhestvennoy rechi [Metalanguage means of modern journalistic and artistic speech]. Abstract of Cand. philol. sci. diss. Moscow, 2009, 24 p.

Blinova O. I. Obydennaya motivologiya i ee aspekty [Obydennoe metayazykovoe soznanie: ontologicheskie i gnoseologicheskie aspekty]. Kemerovo; Barnaul, 2009, pt. 1, pp. 228–238.

Bogdanova-Beglaryan N. V. Refleksiv v sisteme diskursivnykh edinits russkoy ustnoy rechi [Reflexive in the system of discursive units russian oral speech]. The World of Russian Word. 2015, no. 3, pp. 11–17.

Bogdanova-Beglaryan N. V. Tak skazat’ – rozhdenie pragmaticheskogo markera (ob aktivnykh protsessakh v russkoy ustnoy rechi) [Tak skazat’ – the birth of a pragmatic marker (about active processes in Russian oral speech)]. In: Aktivnye protsessy v sovremennom russkom yazyke: natsional’noe i internatsional’noe: Sb. nauch. st. [Active processes in the modern Russian language: national and international: coll. of sci. articles]. Moscow, Flinta, 2021, pp. 73–85.

Gak V. G. Yazykovye preobrazovaniya [Linguistic transformations]. Moscow, LRC Publishing House 1998, 768 p.

Golev N. D. Obydennyy politicheskiy diskurs: metayazykovoy i metalingvisticheskiy aspekty [Ordinary political discourse: meta-linguistic and meta-linguistic aspects]. Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2013, no. 4 (45), pp. 30–37.

Kravchenko M. A. O metayazykovom statuse parenteticheskikh konstruktsiy v khudozhestvennykh i publitsisticheskikh proizvedeniyakh E. Vodolazkina [On the meta-linguistic status of parenthetical constructions in E. Vodolazkin’s fiction and journalistic works]. Sovremennyy uchenyy. 2022, no. 3, pp. 41–50.

Kubryakova E. S. Onomasiologiya [Onomasiology]. In: Yazykoznanie. Bol'shoy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Linguistics. The Big Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, 1998, Bol’shaya Rossiyskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 345–346.

Lukina N. V. Smyslovaya struktura metateksta (na materiale tvorchestva T. Tolstoy) [Semantic structure of metatext (based on the material of T. Tolstoy’s creativity)]. Abstract of Cand. philol. sci. diss. Volgograd, 2011, 26 p. Lyu En’shuay. Funktsionirovanie metatekstovykh operatorov s komponentami “govorya” i “skazat’” v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Functioning of metatext opera-tors with the components “govorya” and “skazat’” in modern Russian]. Abstract of Cand. philol. sci. diss. Vladivostok, 2022, 25 p.

Odekova F. R. Sushchestvitel’nye v sisteme eksplitsitnykh metatekstovykh operatorov russkogo yazyka (na materiale khudozhestvennykh tekstov N. V. Gogolya) [Nouns in the system of explicit metatext operators of the Russian language (based on the material of artistic texts by N.V. Gogol)]. Aktual’nye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk. Moscow, 2009, no. 2, pp.192–193.

Perfil’eva N. P. Metakonstruktsii: semantiko-pragmaticheskiy podkhod [Metaconstructions: semantic and pragmatic approach]. Siberian Journal of Philology. 2018, no. 4, pp. 195 –204.

Postovalova V. I. Ideya “meta” v samosoznanii kul’tury 20–21 vekov [The idea of “meta” in the self-consciousness of culture of the 20th–21st centuries]. Metafizika. Moscow, 2012, no. 4, pp. 6–25.

Rozina R. I. Tak nazyvaemyy: semantika vvodnykh metayazykovykh oborotov [So-called: semantics of introductory metalanguage turns]. In: Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: Po materialam ezhegodnoy mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii “Dialog 2009” [Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference “Dialog 2009”]. Moscow, RSHU, 2009, iss. 8 (15), pp. 426–431.

Sheygal E. I. Refleksivy v politicheskoy kommunikatsii [Reflexives in political communication]. In: Teoreticheskaya i prikladnaya lingvistika: Mezhvuz. sb. nauch. tr. [Theoretical and applied linguistics: interuniversity collection of scientific works]. Voronezh, VSU, 2002, iss. 3: Aspekty metakommunikativnoy deyatel’nosti [Aspects of metacommunicative activity], pp. 133–141.

Shumarina M. R. Yazyk v zerkale khudozhestvennogo teksta. (Metayazykovaya refleksiya v proizvedeniyakh russkoy prozy): Monografiya [Language in the mirror of a literary text. (Metalanguage reflection in works of Russian prose): Monograph]. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka, 2011, 328 p.

Trikoz E. L. Obydennaya metayazykovaya refleksiya nositelya russkogo yazyka vtoroy poloviny 19 veka [Everyday metalanguage reflection of a native speaker of the Russian language of the second half of the 19th century]. Abstract of Cand. philol. sci. diss. Vologda, 2010, 22 p.

Vasil’ev A. D. Refleksivy v televizionnom diskurse [Reflexives in television discourse]. Rechevoe obshchenie. 2000, no. 3 (11), pp. 28–36.

Vepreva I. T. Metayazykovoy vzglyad na lyubimye i nelyubimye slova [Obydennoe metayazykovoe soznanie: ontologicheskie i gnoseologicheskie aspekty]. Kemerovo, Barnaul, 2009, pt. 1, pp. 202 –227.

Vepreva I. T. Yazykovaya refleksiya v postsovetskuyu epokhu [Linguistic reflection in the post–soviet era]. Moscow, 2005, OLMA-PRESS, 384 p.

Vezhbitska A. Metatekst v tekste [Metatext in the text]. In: Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike [New in foreign linguistics]. Moscow, 1978, iss. 8: Lingvistika teksta [Text linguistics], pp. 402–424.