Research article
Issue: № 8 (15), 2013

Малахова В.Л.

Кандидат филологических наук, Белгородский юридический институт МВД России



Статья посвящена анализу особенностей формирования функциональной системности английского дискурса с позиций лингвосинергетики. Автор описывает процесс формирования прагма-семантических планов английского дискурса на примере притяжательных номинаций.

Ключевые слова: лингвосинергетика, система, дискурс, прагма-семантический, притяжательные номинации. 

Malakhova V.L.

PhD in Philology, assosiate professor, Belgorod Law Institute of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia



The article is devoted to the specificity of the formation of the discourse functional systemity in terms of linguosynergetics. The author describes the process of formation of the English discourse pragmatic and semantic plans and exemplify it with the use of possessive nominations.

Keywords: linguosynergetics, system, discourse, pragmatic and semantic, possessive nominations.

The process of cognition implies the emergence of a variety of relationships between a person as an active subject and surroundings – animate and inanimate objects. Among the diversity of such connections, possessive relationships take a significant place.

The notion of possessiveness is rather mixed. Designating a certain relation of an object to another object or person, the category of possessiveness is not reducible solely to possessing. Possessiveness is a complex set of interdependent and interrelated meanings that make up an integrated system of relationships of this type (i.g. see [1, 2, 3]). The principle of formation of a pragmatic and semantic possessive meaning and the role of possessive nominations in structuring of general semantic space of the English discourse can be fully disclosed in the perspective of functional linguosynergetics, i.e. with the use of a dynamic and systemic approach.

As a theory of self-organization, synergetics studies facilities for system self-regulation when it is in the non-equilibrium state and is experiencing an influence from without or from within which may disorder the system. System self-regulation is seen as alternation of phases of stabilization and chaotization. This dynamic process occurs within the system under the influence of the external environment and brings to the emergence of new system properties.

So, linguosynergetics understands any system as a functional dynamic open non-linear non-equilibrium structure and system self-organization as a cumulative interacting of system elements or elementary systems. Such comprehension is applicable to the consideration of a discourse, since it is a multi-dimensional multi-level structure with the complex internal hierarchy which includes small elements and major components that are in interaction and influence each other. Discourse constantly interacts with the environment and undergoes shifts from the equilibrium state to the non-equilibrium one. That is why discourse can be seen as an area of intersection of three (sub)systems – the consciousness of communicants, the language system and the communication situation. These (sub)systems make up the environment for the discourse (for detailed information see [4, 5]).

Like other linguistic phenomena, possessive nominations can have an impact on organization or chaotization of the pragmatic and semantic plans of the English discourse. On the other hand, the dependence of the possessive meaning formation on the certain discursive space, i.e. on complex mechanisms of linear and non-linear interaction between elements and systematic properties of the discourse, is also obvious.

The usage of a functional synergistic approach to the study of possessiveness shows that formation of a pragmatic and semantic possessive meaning in the English discourse is a non-linear process. It means that due to even minor impacts on the system of discourse, there can be spontaneous emergence of new semantic and pragmatic meanings, which could seem not to have initially formed in the space of the discourse. For example:

I waited, crouched in the position for some time. But then I started to think: if a woman did come out, how would I know it was Daniel’s flat she had come out of and not one of the other flats in the building? What would I do? Challenge her? Make a citizen’s arrest? [6, p. 234].

Thus, the linear perception of the possessive meaning formed in the above abstract by a possessive construction N’s + N implies its comprehension as “action of a person’s detention”. As a consequence, there can be an impression that the action expressed by the noun arrest and being the object of the possessive relationship is directed at the subject of the relationship expressed by the noun citizen – arrest (of whom?) of the citizen. However, in the general functional and semantic plans of this discourse, a non-linear effect arises – the action is directed not at the object of the possessive relationship but it is the action of the subject – the detention of a person by a civilian. Such specification of the possessive meaning is possible due to the interaction of components What would I do? and Challenge her?, on the one hand, and to the usage of the expression make arrest, on the other. As a result, the formed possessive meaning changes the vector of the action orientation (it shifts from the external object to the very doer of the action). This, in turn, enriches the semantic plan of the text fragment and strengthens the pragmatic meaning of possessiveness.

At the same time, the nature of the semantic and pragmatic possessive meaning in this case is up to the selection of the linguistic means for its expression. In other words, the functionally effective discourse formation and reaching of the communicative goals depend on the linguistic means properly selected to form the exact possessive meaning. If in this abstract instead of the construction N’s + N was used, say, the construction N1 of N2 (the arrest of a citizen) or a unit of the lexical level (e.g., her arrest), there would be a shift of the pragmatic meaning of possessiveness as in this case in the basis of the formed possessive meaning there is an action directed at the subject of the possessive relationship. Consequently, the functional meaning of a discourse, its pragmatic effect, is dependent on the choice of the strategy and tactics of speech, linguistic means, syntactic structure, etc. The proper understanding of the semantic and pragmatic possessive meaning is possible due to the ability of the communicants to perceive the important elements of the semantic plan of the English discourse. If the exchange of information between the discourse and the consciousness of the addressee is distorted in some way, there could be disruption of formation of the possessive meaning and distortion of its pragmatics.

So, thanks to functional interaction of the elements of the discourse space and an external influence on it (the consciousness of the communicants), there can be formed such a semantic system in which the dynamics of semantic and syntactic relations causes the emergence of new, spontaneous, pragmatic meanings. Depending on the general discourse, possessive nominations form pragmatic and semantic possessive meanings which obtain certain connotations. Specifying of such connotations is possible due to the functional synergetic analysis of discourse, i.e. due to the usage of a functional synergistic approach to the study of possessiveness.



  1. Seiler H. Possession as an operational dimension of language. – Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1983. – 320 p.
  2. Bondarko A. V. Introductory statements // The theory of functional grammar. Location. Existence. Possessiveness. – St. Petersburg: “Nauka”, 1996. – P. 99-100.
  3. Seliverstova O. N. Transactions on semantics. – Moscow: Languages of the Slavonic Culture, 2004. – 960 p.
  4. Ponomarenko E. V. Systemity of functional relations in the modern English discourse: Diss. of Doctor of Philology. – Moscow, 2004. – 447 p.
  5. Borbotko V. G. Principles of discourse formation: From psycholinguistics to linguosynergetics. – Moscow: KomKniga, 2007. – 288 p.
  6. Fielding H. Bridget Jones’s diary. – London: Picador, 2001. – 310 p.