Contemporary Semantics of Russia

Author: Zhang Jiakui
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-07-01
Features: Contemporary Russian semantics, centered on the "Meaning-Text" transformation model and linguistic logic analysis, has achieved remarkable accomplishments and has attracted worldwide attention. This book is divided into three parts: "Lexical Semantic Research," "Propositional Semantic Research of Sentences," and "Pragmatic Semantic Research of Statements," systematically explaining a series of important theoretical and methodological issues in contemporary Russian semantics, including denotative and conceptual meanings at the level of aggregation and combination, semantic valence, lexical functions, semantic factor analysis, lexical information banks, and semantic metalanguage, the propositional semantic structure of sentences, communicative semantic structure, and referential meaning, the propositional attitude, modal intention, and evaluative meaning of statements, and more. Based on this, the author proposes insightful academic viewpoints and conclusions. The corpus in the book is primarily in Russian, with example words and sentences accompanied by Chinese translations for reference by linguistics professionals, teachers, and students in China. Contemporary Russian semantics is a recognized field of remarkable achievement in linguistics. Natural language, in its fundamental function, is a tool for encoding and decoding specific information. Both encoding and decoding rely on in-depth semantic research. Since the 1960s, semantics has garnered increasing attention and has gradually occupied its rightful place among various linguistic disciplines. The term "contemporary Russian semantics" refers to the semantics of Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) since this period. In the 1960s, a significant event occurred in the Russian linguistic field: centered around the Machine Translation Laboratory of the Moscow Dorozhinsky Institute of Foreign Languages, a collective of language researchers formed, aiming to develop a multi-level "Meaning-Text" transformation model for a unified formal description of language. This collective later became known as the Moscow Semantics School. The "Meaning-Text" model simulates two important aspects of human linguistic ability: the encoding ability from "meaning" to "text" and the decoding ability from "text" to "meaning." Encoding addresses the issue of selecting appropriate means from numerous synonymous tools to accurately express meaning through a series of rules, while decoding faces the challenge of eliminating textual ambiguity and selecting the appropriate meaning using another set of rules. Both encoding and decoding tasks require a special, precise metalanguage of meaning, known as semantic metalanguage. The encoding process is the translation of semantic metalanguage into natural language, while the decoding process is the translation of natural language into semantic metalanguage. The Moscow Semantics School quickly gained worldwide reputation, and the "Meaning-Text" model was applied to the description of many languages. To some extent, it can be said that the true essence of contemporary Russian semantics gradually took shape in the field of Russian linguistics with the birth of the Moscow Semantics School. Morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning in language, and from morpheme to discourse, each level of linguistic unit has corresponding aspects of meaning. The research scope of this book is limited to semantic issues at the two basic levels of vocabulary and sentences. The semantics of sentences (or utterances) are divided into two parts: objective propositional meaning and subjective pragmatic meaning. Due to and manpower constraints, the semantics of word formation and discourse semantics are not included in this scope. Grammatical meaning is not our primary focus of description, but according to the principle of unified description of the Moscow Semantics School, it is touched upon in several chapters. Frege (G. Frege) pointed out in his essay "Sense and Reference" that symbols, in themselves, can be understood not only in terms of their relationship with the objects they refer to but also in terms of their relationship with conceptual meaning. The conceptual meaning of symbols reflects the way symbols point to objective things. The Moscow Semantics School's view of meaning focuses on the way symbols point to objective things and events. The meaning of linguistic units belongs to the human mental world, not to the material world described by language, and it is the common content of various different statements used by native speakers as synonymous means, i.e., the constant content of numerous synonymous transformation statements. If this constant content is expressed in metalanguage, then the meaning of linguistic units is the expression of another relatively extended, more explicit metalanguage symbol that this unit is translated into. The semantic view of the Moscow Semantics School is significantly different from various logical and formal semantics, whose focus is not the way symbols point to objects, but the correspondence between symbols and their referenced objects. The "Lexical Semantic Research" part of this book follows the semantic view of the Moscow Semantics School. Lexical semantics is a relatively new discipline that has several important distinctions from traditional lexicology. First, its research object is the lexical semantic unit separated from the content and form of the lexical meaning, not the word itself, which is often unified in content and form and may contain multiple meanings. Therefore, issues such as the external boundary between words and morphemes or phrases, the internal identity in phonetics and morphology, and traditional lexical problems such as phonetic homophony, morphological similarity, and the lexical layer division between proper nouns/loanwords, universal words/loanwords, positive words/negative words, and stylistically general words/stylistically specific words are not the research objects of lexical semantics. Second, although both lexical semantics and lexicology focus on the content level of words, their focus and perspective differ. Lexicology strictly distinguishes between lexical meaning and grammatical meaning, describing the lexical meaning level in isolation and a static manner. In contrast, lexical semantics, on the one hand, describes lexical meaning as an integral component of the holistic descriptive system of language, ensuring that internal lexical semantic features are organically coordinated with external grammatical rule systems. This descriptive method not only accurately reflects the objective facts of the language but also meets the practical needs of textual analysis and synthesis, as holistic description is a means to reveal various causal relationships related to lexical semantic units and lexical meaning, which are necessary rule systems for the encoding and decoding processes of texts. On the other hand, lexical semantics delves deeper into the microcosm of lexical meaning than lexicology. The structure of lexical semantic units includes not only conceptual meaning, denotative meaning, agglutinative meaning, combinatorial meaning, expressive meaning, associative meaning, and grammatical meaning but can also be further divided into several semantic features. The relationship between semantic features in terms of communicative status is often not a simple logical sum but a relationship of assertion/presupposition, foreground/background, and other primary/secondary relationships. The difference between lexical semantic units may only lie in the different communicative roles played by semantic features, rather than their content and quantity. When meaning is placed in the dynamic combinatorial series of speech, its communicative structure may vary compared to the static agglutinative system of language. A specific lexical semantic factor is often selected and highlighted to play the primary communicative role, while other aspects take a secondary communicative role. Due to the lack of effective research methods, the analysis of the structure of semantic features in agglutinative systems and combinatorial levels in the microcosm of lexical semantic units has long been stagnant. In such cases, semantic metalanguage has become a rigorous and precise scientific tool for lexical semantics. A common feature of various contemporary semantic schools is that they each have their own specialized metalanguage system as a research tool for precise description of linguistic meaning and revelation of the microcosm of lexical semantic units. Since communicative function is the basic function of natural language, sentences, as the smallest communicative units, naturally occupy the central position in linguistic research. Various syntactic theories agree that the meaning of sentences can be divided into two distinct aspects: objective and subjective. The objective meaning of sentences is referred to as propositions in semantics. The objectivity of propositional content refers, on the one hand, to the reflection of objective reality fragments in the external world, and on the other hand, and more importantly, to the objective nature stripped of subjective meaning such as propositional attitude, modal intention, and evaluation. First, propositions are not judgments; they do not have truth-value meaning and only acquire corresponding modal meaning of truth or falsity when combined with the communicative intention of affirmation or negation. According to Frege's view, as symbolic units, judgments, like words and phrases, also have the distinction between meaning and reference. Meaning refers to the proposition of the judgment, while reference refers to the truth or falsity value obtained by the proposition. The focus of logical semantics and formal semantics is precisely the truth-value relationship and truth conditions between logical calculi, natural language sentences, and corresponding fragments of the external world. Second, propositions not only exist in judgments that express affirmative or negative modal meaning but also exist in various non-judgmental sentences that express modal intention such as commands, questions, commitments, and thanks. Propositions are the constants of various speech act variant statements, while the intentions of speech acts are the subjective semantic variables that package propositions. The reflection of objective reality fragments by propositions is relative. Fragments of the external world are reflected in sentences through the subjective refraction of language users' consciousness, and the speaker's factors are involved in the construction of propositions. "He sold me a set of stamps" and "I bought a set of stamps from him" reflect the same objective reality fragment, but because the speaker focuses on different aspects, they choose predicates with different valence structures. It is difficult to believe that these two sentences with different predicates contain the same proposition. The subjective meaning of sentences is referred to as modality in traditional grammar, which is further divided into subjective and objective modality. Subjective modality expresses the speaker's attitude toward the content of the sentence, while objective modality refers to the correspondence between the content of the sentence determined by the speaker and the external circumstances. This correspondence can be either real or unreal. Unreal relationships do not have a fixed temporal location, while real relationships include temporal meaning factors such as present, past, and future. In addition to real and unreal correspondence, there are also possibilities such as "might," "must," and "should" between the content of sentences and external circumstances. These relationships appear when the development of the described circumstances objectively has multiple choices, i.e., the content of the sentence or at least in one possible world is real (possible), in all possible worlds is unreal (impossible), or in all possible worlds is real (necessary). Such relationships between the content of sentences and circumstances should also be included in objective modality. Some argue that objective modality does not belong to the subjective meaning of sentences but is part of the objective proposition content. Whether this view is correct or not, we will not make a definitive judgment here, but it should be emphasized that linguistic expressions such as Russian "MOzhno" (possible) and "Nuzhno" (should) can be used to express both objective and subjective modality. Taking "MOzhno" as an example, this auxiliary verb can be used to indicate that the development of circumstances has uncertainty, and the choice of development depends on various factors ("MOzhno byt' CeMkO," "OynYcTMcoJyqafi" - "He once had the possibility of getting married, but missed the opportunity"). It can also be used to express that the speaker lacks sufficient information to determine whether the circumstances are real or not ("MOzhno byt' qaccTLKpe, IK'ZLMCHOM" - "He is probably sleeping soundly right now"). Even if one agrees that objective modality is part of the proposition content, it is important to distinguish between different situations where words with meanings like "might" or "should" express objective modality versus subjective modality. The latter should be clearly separated from propositional semantics. The proposition of a sentence is composed of a core predicate and a varying number of nominal elements constrained by its meaning. Nominal elements in the proposition structure are divided into two categories: thematic (arguments) and situational (circumstantials). Thematic and valence are two concepts that are often confused. According to the view of the Moscow Semantics School, semantic valence is primarily a concept targeting the meaning unit of predicates. The meaning unit of predicates takes situational elements as its object of description, and its meaning reflects the attributes, relationships, and events involving necessary situational participants. The abstract semantic parameters corresponding to the necessary situational participants in the respective predicate meaning structure are called the semantic valence of that predicate. A specific set of semantic valences with certain quantity and type constitutes an integral part of the lexical meaning of the corresponding predicate meaning unit. The deep semantic valences of predicate meaning units are generally manifested in the surface syntactic themes. Although they are closely related, they are two logically distinct concepts. Semantic valence is like the same fish hook on a fishing rod, while syntactic themes are the different fish caught each time. On the one hand, specific types of semantic valences typically correspond to specific types of syntactic themes; on the other hand, there is no necessary one-to-one correspondence between semantic valences and syntactic themes. Additionally, there are two concepts: semantic themes and syntactic valence. The difference between semantic themes and syntactic themes lies in the level of sentence description. In the semantic structure of sentences, the semantic fragments used to fill the semantic valences of predicates are called semantic themes; in the formal structure of sentences, the syntactic fragments used to fill the semantic valences of predicates are called syntactic themes. Similarly, syntactic valence refers to the necessary syntactic fragments that a predicate can connect to in the formal structure of sentences, while semantic valence refers to the abstract semantic parameters that a predicate can connect to within its lexical semantic structure, representing necessary situational participants. The term "valent predicate" is an ambiguous concept. From the perspective of semantic valence, a valent predicate refers to a predicate whose semantic structure or interpretation contains several necessary variables, which are indispensable. Removing any one of them would alter or destroy the lexical meaning. As for whether these valences must be manifested in the discourse through syntactic themes and how, there may be various special cases. From the perspective of syntactic valence, a valent predicate refers to the number of relevant syntactic themes that the sentence surface structure constructed with the predicate may contain. In the "Meaning-Text" transformation model of the Moscow Semantics School, the concepts of syntactic themes and semantic valence are of great significance for describing the deep and surface transformation of syntactic structures. As an important part of the transformation system, the "Detailed Combinatorial Dictionary" provides a table for each predicate meaning unit, showing the category of semantic valence and its corresponding relationship with syntactic theme forms.
Book Contents: Preface
Part I Lexical Semantic Research
Chapter Denotative and Conceptual Meaning
Section Definition of Denotative and Conceptual Meaning
Section Denotative and Conceptual Meaning at the Level of Aggregation and Combination
Chapter Combinatorial Meaning
Section Semantic Valence
Section Semantic Valence and Syntactic Themes
Section Semantic Valence and Lexical Collocation
Section Concept of Lexical Function
Section Lexical Function and Deep Syntactic Structure
Section Lexical Function and the System of Synonymous Transformation
Section Linguistic Value of the Theory of Lexical Function
Chapter Analysis of Lexical Semantic Factors
Section Communicative Function Transformation of Lexical Semantic Factors
Section Presupposition and Analysis of Lexical Semantic Factors
Section Lexical Semantic Deviation
Section Lexical Information Bank
Chapter Moscow Semantics School
Section Overview of the Moscow Semantics School
Section Aprelsyan/Wierzbicka's Semantic Metalanguage
Chapter Comparative Research on Russian-Chinese Lexical Semantics
Section Comparison of Semantic Categories of Russian and Chinese Verbs
Section Comparative Study of Russian-Chinese Idiomatic Categories
Part II Propositional Semantic Research of Sentences
Chapter Thematic Elements in Propositional Meaning
Section Concept of Thematic Elements
Section Subjective Thematic Elements
Section Objective Thematic Elements
Chapter Predicates in Propositional Meaning
Section Classification Principles of Semantic Predicates
Section Semantic Description of Relational Predicates
Section Semantic Description of Emotional Predicates
Section Semantic Description of Physical Behavioral Predicates
Chapter Extension and Patternization of Propositional Structures
Section Extension of Propositional Structures
Section Patternization of Propositional Structures
Chapter Referential Meaning of Propositions
Section Referential Meaning of Nominal Phrases
Section Referential Research of Propositional Semantics
Chapter Communicative Structure Meaning of Sentences
Section Actual Partition of Sentences
Section Actual Partition and Verb Aspects
Section Actual Partition and Declarative Modality
Section Theme in Russian and Topic in Chinese
Part III Pragmatic Semantic Research of Statements
Chapter Propositional Attitude
Section Binary Opposition Categories of Statement Meaning
Section Classification of Propositional Attitude Predicates
Section Perceptual Propositional Attitude Predicates
Section Opinion Propositional Attitude Predicates
Section Reflections on Propositional Attitude
Chapter Modal Intentional Meaning
Section Russian Pragmatics
Section Performative Verbs and Performative Sentences
Section Concepts of Speech Intention
Section Concepts of Speech Acts
Section Communicative Strategies
Section Effector Behavior and Effector Results
Chapter Types of Speech Acts
Section Types of Speech Acts
Section Subtypes of Imperative Speech Acts
Section Indirect Speech Acts
Chapter Evaluative Meaning
Section Evaluative Meaning from a Linguistic Perspective
Section Evaluative Predicates and Evaluative Statements
Russian-Chinese Glossary of Terms
References