Lexical-Grammatical Means of Expressing Oppositivity in an English Literary Text
- Authors: Lunkova L.N.1, Frolova J.I.2
-
Affiliations:
- State University of Social Studies and Humanities
- High Comprehensive School Number 18
- Issue: Vol 12, No 3 (2021): Linguistic dominants of grammar and lexics
- Pages: 758-773
- Section: DISCOURSIVE PRACTICES AND TEXT ANALYSIS
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-2299/article/view/323364
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2021-12-3-758-773
- ID: 323364
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The article considers the notional nature and peculiarities of genus-species relations between the phenomena of opposition and oppositivity ; it also deals with the lexical-and-grammatica ways of expressing the latter in an English literary text. The study establishes that, besides the logical component, an opposition also expresses a subjective one, manifesting a communicant’s unique view on the communicative situation and thus displaying semantics of oppositivity. Unlike spatial, logical and grammatical oppositions, generally characterized by a symmetrical structure, the subjective (oppositive) opposition is asymmetrical. It is revealed that due to the structural asymmetry this kind of opposition is marked by greater semantic potential compared to logical and grammatical oppositions. It is proved that the complication of subjective oppositions with antonymous pairs, lexical and syntactical repetitions, antithetic units, oxymorons etc. extends the scope of meanings implied by them; and the use of subjective (oppositive) oppositions in a literary text themselves becomes an effective tool of contrast-building both on the lexical-grammatical and textual levels.
About the authors
Larisa N. Lunkova
State University of Social Studies and Humanities
Author for correspondence.
Email: loralu@list.ru
Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Chair of German and Roman languages and their teaching methods
30, Zelyonaya str., Kolomna, Moscow region, Russian Federation, 140410Julia I. Frolova
High Comprehensive School Number 18
Email: juliejulie1903@gmail.com
teacher of foreign languages
7, Yuzhnaya str., Kolomna district, Russia Federation, 140404References
- Frolov, I.T. (2001). Philosophical Dictionary. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Shmidt, G. (2003). Philosophical Dictionary. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Ivin, A.A. & Nikiforov, A.L. (1997). Dictionary of Logic. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Kondakov, N.I. (1975). Logical Dictionary and Reference Book. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Mukarzhovskiy, Ya. (1994). The Studies in Aesthetics and Art Theory. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Russ.).
- Ovsyannikov, M.F. (1983). The Concise Dictionary of Aesthetics. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Bim-Bad, B.M. (2002). Pedagogical encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Matthews, P.H. (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Martine, A. (2009). The Fundamentals of General Linguistics. Moscow: Librokom publ. (In Russ.).
- Akhmanova, O.S. (1966). Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- In’kova-Manzotti, O.Yu. (2001). Opposition Connectors in French and Russian. Comparative Study. Moscow: MSU. (In Russ.).
- Milovanova, M.S. (2015). The Semantics of Oppositivity: the Experience of Structural-Semantic Analysis. Moscow: FLINTA: Nauka publ. (In Russ.).
- Doroshevskiy, V. (1973). Elements of Lexicology and Semiotics. Moscow: Progress publ. (In Russ.).
- Il’in, V.N. (2009). The Main Problem of the Theory of Knowledge. Voprosy filosofii, 7, 123—134. (In Russ.).
- Timofeyev, L.I. (1963). The Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Dibrova, Ye.I. (2001). Antonymic Paradigm. Modern Russian Language: Theory. Analysis of Linguistic Units. Moscow: Academy publ. (In Russ.).
- Bulakhovskiy, L.A. (1953). Introduction to Linguistics. Part 2. Moscow: Uchpedgiz. (In Russ.).
- Komissarov, V.N. (1957). The Problem of Defining the Antonym (about the Relationship between the Logical and the Linguistic in Semasiology). Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2, 49—58. (In Russ.).
- Novikov, L.A. (1973). Antonymy in the Russian Language: Semantic Analysis of Opposition in Vocabulary. Moscow: MSU. (In Russ.).
- Novikov, L.A. (2001). Issues of Linguistic Meaning. Moscow: RUDN. (In Russ.).
- Mikhaylov, V.A. (1987). The Genesis of Antonymic Oppositions. (Antonymy and Negation). Leningrad: LSU. (In Russ.).
- Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Cruse, A. (2011). Meaning in Language: an Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Egan, R.F. (1968). Survey of the History of English Synonymy. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
- Ushakov, D.N. (2014). Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Kornilova, L.A. & Ismayeva, F.Kh. (2015). Ways of the Realization of the Opposition Category on Different Levels in Russian and English. Filologiya i kul’tura, 2(40), 66—70. (In Russ.).
- Filin, F.P. (1979). The Russian Language: Encyclopedia. Moscow. (In Russ.).
- Kovtunenko, I.V. (2018). Rhetorical relations of contrast in the blog text: marking means, semantics, functions. Russian Language Studies, 16(1), 63—90. doi: 10.22363/2313-2264-2018-16-1-63-90
- Shaklein, V.M. & Kovtunenko, I.V. (2021). Models of rhetorical relations in Russian blogging as an indicator of interlocutors’ information behavior. Russian Language Studies, 19(2), 167—179. doi: 10.22363/2618-8163-2021-19-2-167-179
Supplementary files
