ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ СРЕДСТВА КОГЕЗИИ В ТРИЛОГЕ

Науменко М.Г.

ORCID: 0000-0002-4825-0186, Кандидат филологических наук, Южный федеральный университет,

ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ СРЕДСТВА КОГЕЗИИ В ТРИЛОГЕ

Аннотация

Статья посвящена описанию лексических средств когезии в трилоге- минимальной форме полилога. Цель статьи – выявить лексические средства когезии, характерные для полилогической речи. На сегодняшний день вопрос об особенностях лексической связи (когезии, сцепления) между репликами полилогических единств ос­таётся мало изученным. В связи с этим актуальным представляется выявление способов реализации когезии внутри трилога как разновидности полилога. Основной задачей является доказательство того, что трилогическое единство, подобно диалогическому, представляет собой структурно-семантическое целое, состоящее из нескольких реплик, скреплённых между собой лексически и структурно. Результаты данного исследования могут быть использованы в теоретических и практических курсах теории языка, лингвистики текста, теории коммуникации, а также в практике преподавания английского языка. Работа способствует совершенствованию методологии изучения полилогического общения.

Ключевые слова: полилог, трилог, когезия, лексичеcкая когезия.

Naumenko M.G.

ORCID: 0000-0002-4825-0186, PhD in Philology, Southern Federal University

LEXICAL MEANS OF COHESION IN THE TRILOGUE

Abstract

This study investigates the lexical means of cohesion in the trilogue - the minimal form of the polylogue. The purpose of the article is to reveal the lexical means of cohesion, which are characteristic of the polylogue. So far there are few studies devoted to polylogue and means of cohesion in this many-sided form of communication. In the article the means of cohesion inside the trilogue as a variant of the polylogue will be described. The main objective of the given study is to prove that a trilogue unity, like a dialogue one, is a structural-semantic entity, consisting of several utterances that are linked together lexically and structurally. The results of this study can be used in theoretical and practical courses of the theory of language, text linguistics, communication theory, and also practical English teaching.. The work contributes to the improvement of the methodology for studying communication in the polylogue.

Keywords: polylogue, trilogue, cohesion, lexical cohesion.

Introduction

One of the most interesting tasks the scholars deal with in modern linguistic text analysis is the investigation of textual categories. T.M. Nikolaeva gives the following definition of text linguistics – “text linguistics is a scientific discipline, the aim of which is to find and to construct a system of textual categories with some specific meaningful and formal units, as well as to describe the conditions of “adequate” communication” [1, P. 267-268]. Text linguistics is a trend of linguistic research that studies the rules according to which it is possible to construct a coherent text and textual categories, that are expressed according to these rules. The main textual categories are considered to be cohesion and integrity [2], [3], [4].

Linked sequences of sentences from the point of view of their communicative focus are divided into monological and dialogical (or polylogical) sequences. The minimal unit of the monologue sequence is the complex syntactic entity, or super phrasal unity [5, P. 435]. It is worth mentioning that the means of cohesion of the monologue sequences have been studied quite well. Scientists [2], [3], [4] identify different means of cohesion, characteristic of monologue speech. For instance, M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan distinguish five types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion. Cohesion takes place when the interpretation of one element of the text depends on the interpretation of the other, one element inevitably assumes the other [2, P. 4].

The dialogical sequence of sentences, unlike a monological one, is two-directional, its components consisting of one or several sentences are pronounced by interlocutors in turns, as if meeting each other. The minimal unit of this sequence is the dialogue unity [6, P.34]. The studies of the means of cohesion of dialogues are not so numerous. This, first of all, is due to the fact that in the dialogue, according to E.V.Paducheva, the pragmatic connection of utterances is more important than constructive [7]. Still, some studies of the means of cohesion in the dialogue identified the following means: anaphoric pronouns, pronominal substitutions; lexical and synonymical repetitions, as well as repetitions of one-root words; lexical and grammatical antonyms; words of one lexical-semantic or thematic group; conjunctions, particles, modal words, interjections, correlating statements, incompleteness of the first initiating utterance, parallelism of the structure of utterances [8, P.660].

As different from dialogue unity, which represents a two-segmented formation produced by two linguistic subsystems that have entered into communicative contact [9, P.117), a polylogue is a multi-segmented formation. If a minimal dialogue unity consists of minimum two utterances, a minimal polylogue unity, that is trilogue unity, consists of minimum three utterances.

Both Russian and foreign scholars believe that the basis of lexical cohesion is a repetition, identical or modified, i.e. it can be a repetition of the same lexical unit, the use of its synonym, an antonym, hyponym or hyperonym, as well as semantically equivalent elements connected at the level of paradigmatic relations [2], [3]. Lexical cohesion, according to T.V. Milevskaya, relies primarily on the nominative elements of the lexical system of the language [4, P. 125).

The aim of this study was the description of lexical means of cohesion in the trilogue, the means characteristic of this three-sided form of communication, in order to prove that the minimal trilogue unity is a three-segment formation, and unlike the dialogue unity, which is a chain of stimulus-reaction, the trilogue unity is a triangle in which the second and third utterances are conditioned by the first, and are thus interrelated.

Material and methods

The material of the study is the corpus of trilogues from British and American plays (our study was based on 2000 trilogue unities).  The objectives of the work resulted in the application of the following methods: hypothetical-deductive, linguistic observation and description, pragmalinguistic and contextual analysis. The principles of anthropocentrism, the activity approach to the study of language as a complex system-structural formation were adopted as the methodological concepts .

Results

The following means of lexical cohesion in the trilogue sequences, through which the semantic coherence of the trilogue is achieved, were singled out in the process of our investigation.

1. Identical repetition of a lexical unit in the utterances of three communicants.

Ellicott. There’s no sense walking into trouble.

Andrew (nods his head). So you’re admitting now that there might be trou­ble? That they might not see it the way – the way we do it?

Cora. But why should there be any trouble? We can run the factory when we want to. It’s ours. I don’t understand why there should be any trouble- (L.Hillman. Days to Come).

2. Root repetition in the utterances of three communicants.

Jarvis. I never saw a human to grow so fast in all my life. I think we ought to tie a brick to your head.

Frankie . Oh, Jarvis! Don’t.

Janice. Don’t tease your little sister. I don’t think Frankie is too tall. She proba­bly won’t grow much more. I had the biggest portion of my growth by the time I was thirteen.

Frankie. But I’m just twelve. When I think of all the growing years ahead of me, I get scared.

Janice. I wouldn’t worry (C. McCullers. The Member of the Wedding).

3. Synonymical repetition.

Leonie. What’s the matter? Don’t you like it?

Paula. It’s very pretty.

Leonie. Pretty! Pretty! (She hopes for more from Kenneth.) Kenneth…?

Kenneth. It’s exquisite! (S.N.Behrman. End of Summer).

4. Antonymiсal repetition.

Leonie. But Kenneth – Boris worshipped his father.

Kenneth. No, he hated him. He hated him when he was alive and he hates him still… Did you worship your father, Count Mirsky?

Boris. It’s true! I hated him!  (S.N.Behrman. End of Summer).

5. Pronominal substitution.

Tilly. Money is not everything, anyway.

Morrison.  Especially when you have it…

Edward. As long as you have  it.  (K.Williams. Feelings).

Discussion

The formation of the structure and semantics of the trilogue unity is affected by a strong initial position: the antecedent word predicting the realization of a certain general semantics is always in the first initiating utterance. The subsequent reactive utterances of the other two communicants always correspond with the initiating one and develop a microtheme common to a particular trilogue unity.

A characteristic feature of the trilogue unity is that lexical units with similar meanings are present in the utterances of each of the three communicants. An increase in the number of participants in communication leads to longer nominative chains - successions that work for the development of the theme.

Conclusion

We conclude that lexical cohesion in the trilogue is realized by identical and modified repetitions, including the use of semantically correlated words: one-root words, synonyms and antonyms, as well as pronominal (deictic) substitution. Our results demonstrate that in the minimal trilogues lexical units with similar meanings are present in all the three utterances. Thus, the minimal trilogue unity is a three-segment formation, a triangle in which the second and third utterances are conditioned by the first.

Список литературы / References

1. Николаева Т.М. Лингвистика текста. / Т.М. Николаева // Языкознание. Большой энциклопедический словарь.  / Гл. ред. В.Н. Ярцева. – 2-е изд. – М.: Большая Российская энциклопедия, 1998. – С. 267-268.
2. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English / M.A.K. Halliday, R. Hasan. – London: Longman Group LTD, 1976. – 374 p.
3. Откупщикова М.И. Синтаксис связного текста / М.И. Откупщикова.  – Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1982. – 104 с.
4. Милевская Т.В. Связность как категория дискурса и текста / Т.В. Милевская. – Ростов н/Д: РГУ, 2003. – 337 с.
5. Шевякова В.Е. Сверхфразовое единство / В.Е. Шевякова // Языкознание. Большой энциклопедический словарь.   Гл. ред. В.Н. Ярцева. – 2-е изд. – М.: Большая Российская энциклопедия, 1998. – С. 435.
6. Шведова Н.Ю. Очерки по синтаксису русской разговорной речи / Н.Ю. Шведова. – М., 1960. – 281 с.
7. Падучева Е.В. О связности диалогического текста / Е.В. Падучева // Структура текста-81. Тезисы симпозиума.–  М., 1981. – С. 20-23.
8. Николина Н.А. Современный русский язык: Теория. Анализ языковых единиц: Учеб. для студ. высш. учеб. заведений / Н.А. Николина, В.В. Бабайцева, Л.Д. Чеснокова и др.; Под ред. Е.И. Дибровой. – М.: Издательский центр “Академия”, 2001. – 704 с.
9. Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики. Учебник / М.Я. Блох. – 2-е изд. –  М.: Высшая школа, 2000. – 160 с.

Список литературы на английском языке / References in English

1. Nikolaeva T.M. Lingvistika teksta [Text Linguistics] // Jazykoznanie. Bol'shoj jenciklopedicheskij slovar' [Linguistics. Big Encyclopedic dictionary] / T.M. Nikolaeva / Edited by V.N. Jarceva. – 2^nd edition. – M.: Bol'shaja Rossijskaja jenciklopedija, 1998. – P. 267-268. [in Russian]
2. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English / M.A.K. Halliday, R. Hasan. – London: Longman Group LTD, 1976. – 374 p.
3. Otkupshhikova M.I. Sintaksis svjaznogo teksta [Syntax of coherent text] / M.I. Otkupshhikova.  – L.: Izd-vo LGU, 1982. – 104 p. [in Russian]
4. Milevskaja T.V. Svjaznost' kak kategorija diskursa i teksta [Cohesion as a category of discourse and text] / T.V. Milevskaja. – Rostov n/D: RGU, 2003. – 337 p. [in Russian]
5. Shevjakova V.E. Sverhfrazovoe edinstvo [Super phrasal unity] / V.E. Shevjakova // Jazykoznanie. Bol'shoj jenciklopedicheskij slovar' [Linguistics. Big Encyclopedic dictionary]. Edited by V.N. Jarceva. – 2^nd edition. – M.: Bol'shaja Rossijskaja jenciklopedija, 1998. – P. 435. [in Russian]
6. Shvedova N.Ju. Ocherki po sintaksisu russkoj razgovornoj rechi [Essays on the syntax of colloquial speech] / N.Ju. Shvedova. – M., 1960. – 281 p. [in Russian].
7. Paducheva E.V. O svjaznosti dialogicheskogo teksta [On the coherence of the dialogue] / E.V. Paducheva // Struktura teksta-81. Tezisy simpoziuma. [The structure of the text-81. Theses of the simposium]. – M., 1981. – P. 20-23. [in Russian]
8. Nikolina N.A. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk: Teorija. Analiz jazykovyh edinic: Ucheb. dlja stud. vyssh. ucheb. zavedenij [Modern Russian language. Theory. Analysis of language units] / N.A. Nikolina, V.V. Babajceva, L.D. Chesnokova and others; Edited by E.I. Dibrovoj. – M.: Izdatel'skij centr “Akademija”, 2001. – 704 p. [in Russian]
9. Bloh M.Ja. Teoreticheskie osnovy grammatiki. Uchebnik [Theoretical basis of grammar] / M.Ja. Bloh. – 2^nd edition. –  M.: Vysshaja shkola, 2000. – 160 p. [in Russian]