Nuzban О.V.
Cognitive interpretation of the semantic field of perceptual adjectives hard and soft (on the
basis of lexicographical works)
Perceptual (sensory vocabulary) of different languages has long since seen a particular growth of
interest, sparked by the works of A. Wierzbicka, A. Merzlyakova, K. Rakhilina, M. Shindo and S.
Ullmann, among others Among various parts of speech under study, perception adjectives move centre
stage and hold one of the leading positions. This can be accounted for the ability of adjectives to
reflect the speaker’s way of construing the situation, because they increase the precision of description,
and their grading characteristics tend to imply the speaker’s attitude to or evaluation of the situation.
There has been a huge bulk of research on perception adjectives that denote such vital qualities as
smell, colour (sight), hearing, taste, and tactile phenomena. The verbalization of tactile senses, in
particular, adjectives with the semantic component soft – hard, have, nonetheless, received little focus
from researchers studying the English language, and, accordingly, calls forth the need for in-depth
research in this area. Adjectives that denote hardness in the English language have already been the
object of research focusing on lexical-semantic groups in the Old English period [1], their semantic
structure has been analyzed as part of the domain “Touch” [7]. A comparative linguistic research of
the regularities of semantic derivation of the adjectives [2] has also partially dwelled on them. The
present paper focuses on the correlation of semantic and conceptual dimensions of antonymous
adjectives hard and soft that represent the individual concept HARDNESS in the modern English.
It should be mentioned that the studies of the ways of structuring knowledge and ideas of
contemporary English speakers about the adjectival units under research that, on the whole, denote a
deep conceptual field, has not yet been represented as a systematic phenomenon from linguocognitive
perspective in the national linguistic literature.
Hence, the present research aims at investigating the semantic representation of the adjectives hard
and soft on the basis of 10 English dictionaries of the latest publications [AHDE, CED, MD, MWCD,
WNWCD, OALD, LDOCE, UD, PD, CALD], as well as analyzing the conceptual field of the lexemes
under study. On the whole, when juxtaposing the semantic field (SF) with the conceptual field (CF),
we, in fact, compare the linguistic world view with the conceptual one. The correlation between the
conceptual and the linguistic world views is, most of the times, considered to be such, according to
which the conceptual world view is broader than the linguistic one, and completely embraces the
content of the latter [5, p. 145-147].
Since the basic trend in semantic-cognitive research (O.L. Bessonova, K.V. Rakhilina, M.V. Skab,
Y.A. Sternin) [3; 8; 9; 11] consists in the studies of the correlation of the language semantics with the
human conceptual sphere, i.e. semantic processes with the cognitive ones, we turn to the analysis of
dictionary definitions, working our way from the semantics of lexical units to their conceptual content.
As O.S. Kubryakova rightly puts it, “the information that has been marked by a human as particularly
relevant for his/her existing, is fixed in dictionary definitions” [6, p. 65]. Language, according to the
postulates of semantic-cognitive approach, is viewed as one of the ways of getting access to a human’s
conscience, his/her conceptual sphere, as well as the content and structure of concepts representing the
units of thought. Such way is the most objective and the most formalized.
Let us examine methods of cognitive interpretation on the example of the results of a linguocognitive research of the semantics of the adjectives hard and soft. The first stage of the cognitive
interpretation of the results of lexicographical representation of the semantics of the adjectives under
research presupposes the selection of semantic blocks (the term belongs to K.V. Rakhilina), that are
considered to be groups of two or more meanings that have common features and differ from other
meanings of the same word. The second stage of cognitive interpretation of semantic field of the
analyzed adjectives is generalization of separate meanings and formation of specific cognitive features
within corresponding classifiers. Lexical units that are similar in their semantics, are interpreted as
representations of a separate cognitive feature, and their frequency is added.
On the basis of the cognitive interpretation of lexicographical representation of SF of the adjectives
hard and soft among the elicited meanings we have singled out 14 semantic blocks for the adjective
hard and 12 SBs – for the adjective soft that reflect cognitive features of the corresponding adjectives.
As the results of the performed research indicate, the semantic field of the adjective hard is
represented by the following 14 SBs:
“Difficulty” (19,5%), “Considerable impact” (14,9%),
“Severeness” (10,4%), “Harshness, disagreeable sensations” (10%), “Hardness of an object” (10%),
“Non-compliance” (6,6%), “Realistic view” (6,2%), “Exactness” (5,8%), “Authenticity” (4,6%),
“Persistence” (3,3%), “Endurance” (2,9%), “Stability” (2,9%), “Core information” (1,7%), “Audacity”
(1,2%). Percent representation of the SF structure of the adjective hard, produced as a result of
investigating different SBs, can be graphically presented by means of the following diagram (see
Picture 1):
HARD
19,5% скла дні сть
14,9% сильна ді я
2,9%
2,9%
3,3%
4,6%
1,7%
1,2%
10,4% суворі сть
19,5%
10% рі зкі сть, неприємні сть
10% тверді сть об’єкта
5,8%
6,6% непоступливі сть
6,2% реа лі стичні сть
5,8% чі ткі сть
4,6% достові рні сть
6,2%
14,9%3,3% на полегливі сть
2,9% виносливі сть
6,6%
2,9% ста бі льні сть
10,0%
10,4%
10,0%
1,7% основна і нформа ці я
1,2% хоробрі сть
Picture 1. Percent representation of the semantic field structure of the adjective hard
The determined SF structure of the adjective hard that is characterized by cognitive features which
are verbalized by a totality of upper-mentioned SBs, implies different ways of its explication by native
speakers. Specifically, SB “Hardness of an object” mirrors speakers’ conception about hardness of
different objects that are perceived by touch through direct contact with the surrounding world.
Hardness of objects manifests itself during active (via hands and fingers) or passive (via skin)
perception of the world by a human. According to the frequency index the dominant conceptual feature
(CF) is the following: resistant to pressure; not readily penetrated; firm (9): hard cement. It is
interesting that semantic block “Hardness of an object” in all 10 dictionaries appears in the first
position. Nonetheless, the percent fraction of the given semantic block is not the highest, but is inferior
to four other SBs. The semantic block “Harshness, disagreeable sensations” also reflects speakers’ idea
of hardness of phenomena which, unlike the previous ones, are perceived by human by means of other
sensory spheres: sight, hearing, smell, and taste. The most frequent conceptual feature in this semantic
block is “intense in force or degree; violent” (9): hard wind. Thus, SBs “Hardness of an object” and
“Harshness, disagreeable sensations” fix the existence of sensory-image representation.
“Considerable impact” (has the most frequent CF – having high alcoholic content; intoxicating (10):
hard drink), “Exactness” (dominant is CF: marked by sharp outline and definition (5): hard
silhouette), “Authenticity” (the most frequent CF is: that can be verified; undeniable; factual (9): hard
evidence), “Core information” (which is represented by the only CF: consisting of the basic facts about
major events, as opposed to presenting feature stories, opinion (4): hard news) constitute rationallogical modus, since they are the results of abstracting, and are not perceived directly by means of
sensory organs. The rest of SBs are united by a common conceptual feature “evaluation” and,
therefore, represent evaluative modus. It is interesting to observe that hardness is perceived by the
representatives of English linguoculture not only negatively, but is also characterized by a positive
estimation. For example: SB “Persistence” (introduced by the only CF: performing with great energy,
persistence, intensity (8): hard worker), “Audacity” (has 1 CF: brave, strong and ready to fight (3): to
be hard enough), “Endurance” (CF with the highest frequency index: being heavily fortified (3): hard
missile) , “Realistic view” (with the most frequent CF: free from illusion or bias; practical; realistic
(7): hard view of life), “Stability” (the highest frequency index belongs to CF: in strong demand;
stable (4): hard currency). The negative vector of evaluation characterizes the following CFs:
“Difficulty” (introduced by two most frequent CFs: difficult to accomplish or resolve (10): hard
problem та demanding the exertion of energy (10): hard labor), “Severity” (with the most frequent
CF: harsh or severe in effect, nature (9): hard words), “Non-compliance” (the most frequent CF is:
resistant in persuasion; adamant; tough (8): hard man).
Thus, the conceptual field of the adjective hard is a totality of concepts as quanti of information and
knowledge of English native speakers about hardness. As suggested by Y.S. Stepanov, “a sensory
image constitutes the nucleus of any concept, which, governed by the needs of rational cognition, goes
through a series of complex thinking processes, aiming at a higher level of abstraction”. On its way it
becomes overgrown with a great many features, which mirror the qualities of objects and phenomena
that are perceived, transforming into a complete image” [10, p. 44]. Indeed, when analyzing the
achieved results, we ascertain that on the same level with perceptual images there are cognitive
features, which have been formed as a result of associative thinking, cognitive activity and abstracting.
Let us proceed with the analysis of the semantic field of the antonym soft, which is presented by 12
SBs (see Picture 2): “Agreeable sensations” (20,5%), “Complianace” (11,9%), “Weak impact”
(11,9%), “Softness of an object” (10%), “Easiness” (9%), “Kindness” (8,1%), “Feebleness” (8,1%),
“Instability” (5,7%), “Vagueness” (5,7%), “Mental deficiency” (3,8%), “Inauthenticity” (3,3%),
“Secondary information” (1,9%).
SOFT
5,7%
1,9%
3,8% 3,3%
20,5% приємні ві дчуття
11,9% поступливі сть
11,9% сла бка ді я
20,5%
10% м’які сть об’єкта
5,7%
9% легкі сть
8,1% добродушні сть
8,1%
8,1% невиносливі сть
11,9%
5,7% неста бі льні сть
5,7% нечі ткі сть
3,8% розумова обмежені сть
8,1%
9,0%
11,9%
10,0%
3,3% недостові рні сть
1,9% другорядна і нформа ці я
Picture 2. Percent representation of the semantic field structure of the adjective soft
Using identical procedure, we single out the same modi and determine the most frequent conceptual
feature for each semantic block:
1) Sensory-image modus: “Agreeable sensations” (3 CFs with the highest frequency: low and
pleasing (10): soft voice; not brilliant or glaring; subdued (10): soft light; temperate mild, pleasant,
without much force (10): soft breeze), “Softness of an object” (2 CFs with the same frequency index:
yielding readily to pressure or weight; not hard or stiff (10): soft wax; smooth or fine to the touch
(10): soft silk).
2) Rational-logical modus: “Weak impact” (CF: having low dissolved mineral content (9): soft
water), “Vagueness” (CF: slightly blurred; not sharply outlined (6): soft focus), “Inauthenticity” (CF:
based on data from interviews, surveys, etc., rather than from controlled, repeatable experiments (4):
soft evidence), “Secondary information” (CF: informal and entertaining without confronting difficult
issues (4): soft news).
3) Evaluative modus: а) positive evaluation: “Easiness” (CF: easy; not complicated (10: soft
job), “Benevolence” (CF; tender-hearted, kind, compassionate (10): soft grandmotherly woman),
“Compliance” (CF: not strict enough with other people; lenient; permissive (10): to be soft on
children), б) negative evaluation: “Feebleness” (CF: physically out of condition; flabby; delicate (7):
too soft for the army), “Instability” (CF: gradually declining in trend; sluggish; unstable (7): soft
market) “Mental deficiency” (CF: mentally deficient (8): to by soft in the head).
Since the lexemes under study bear antonymous relations and their contrasting is the linguistic
phenomenon, it is interesting to observe areas of their semantic approximation, as contrasting is a kind
of comparison, and susceptible to comparison are only those lexical units, which overlap in their
semantics. Comparing the SBs, produced as the results of interpretative research, we notice
considerable divergences in the evaluative modus of the analyzed adjectives.
Table 1. Comparative characteristics of the evaluative modus of the adjectives hard and soft
Evaluative modus of the adjectives under study
hard
soft
1. SB “Difficulty”
1. SB “Easiness”
2. SB “Stability”
2. SB “Instability”
3. SB “Endurance”
3. SB “Feebleness”
4. SB “Severity”
4. SB “Kindness”
5. SB “Non-compliance”
5. SB “Compliance”
–
6. SB “Mental deficiency”
6. SB “Persistence”
–
7. SB “Audacity”
–
8. SB “Realistic view”
–
The data represented in the table above suggest the phenomenon of semantic asymmetry of
antonyms, which consists in the fact that one of the members of an antonymous pair is semantically
more complex than the other one. According to a well-established view, one of the members of an
antonymous opposition is positive in its semantic interpretation, and the other is negative, while the
very relation is asymmetrical. The negative member of the opposition appears to be more important
and more complex semantically [4, p. 145]. Such asymmetry (moving into two directions) is natural as
it is clearly reflective of the segmentation of the real world. Proceeding from solely psychological
assumptions, it is natural for a human to react more sharply on negative phenomena that call forth
discomfort and cause counteraction. Owing to this, the sphere of explication of the negative member of
the opposition will be represented in language more discretely. In the given adjectival opposition, hard
is a negative, marked member of the opposition, and denotes the presence of the feature “hardness”,
while its antonym, soft, performs the function of a positive, unmarked member of the opposition and
indicates the absence or a lower degree of explication of the corresponding feature.
To summarize, the results of the carried out interpretative analysis of the semantic field of the
adjectives indicate that their conceptual field (which constitutes a totality of concepts of a varying
degree of importance for the a human’s cognition) is characterized by integral as well as differential
conceptual features. The analyzed lexemes, with are verbalized by means of different SBs, function in
the totality of the following modi: sensory-image, rational-logical, and evaluative. The data, drawn
from lexicographical sources have demonstrated that the evaluative modus of the adjectives under
study is marked by the biggest number of differential conceptual features, which can be explained by
the appliance of these lexemes to the layer of sensory vocabulary, for which evaluative characteristics
of sensations and impressions are paramount. Based on the findings of this preliminary study, several
lines of future research may be useful to gain further insight into the conceptual field of the adjectives
hard and soft by studying their combinatory potential within a textual fragment and establishing new,
individual cognitive characteristics.
Literature
1.
Agalakova T.B. Stanovleniye leksiko-semanticheskogo polya sinesteticheskikh prilagatelnykh
v angliyskom yazyke : avtoref. dis…kand. filol. nauk: spez. 10.02.04. “Germanskiye yazyki” /
Т.B. Agalakova. – Kirov, 2003. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode :
http://www.dissercat.com/content/stanovlenie-leksiko-semanticheskogo-polyasinesteticheskikh-prilagatelnykh-v-angliiskom-yazyke.
2.
Astapkina Е.S. Zakonomernosti semanticheskoy derivazii prilagatelnykh osyazatelnogo
vospriyatiya (na materiale russkogo, belorusskogo, angliyskogo i nemezkogo yazykov) :
avtoref. dis…kand. filol. nauk: spez. 10.02.19. “Teoriya yazyka” / Е.S. Astapkina. – Minsk,
2012. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode : referat.vak.org.by.
3.
Bessonova О.L. Ozzinnyj tezaurus angliyskoyi movy: kognityvno-genderni aspekty / О.L.
Bessonova – Donetsk : Donezkyj nazionalnyj universytet, 2002. – 362 s.
4.
Kochergan M. P. Slovo і kontekst (Leksychna spoluchuvanist і znachennya slova) /
М. P. Kochergan. – Lyviv : Vysha shk., 1980. – 184 s.
5.
Kubryakova Е.S. Rol slovoobrazovaniya v formirovanii yazykovoy kartiny mira //
Rol chelovecheskogo faktora v yazyke: Yazyk i kartina mira / Otv. red. akad. B.А.
Serebrennikov. – М. : Nauka, 1998. – s. 141-172
6.
Kubryakova Е.S. Yazyk i znanie: Na puti polucheniy znaniy о yazike: Chasti rechi s
kognitivnoy tochki zreniya. Rol yazyka v poznanii mira / Е.S. Kubryakova // Ros.
akademiya nauk, institut yazykoznaniya. – М. : Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury, 2004. – 549 s.
7.
Laenko L.V. Perzeptivnyj priznak kak obyekt nominazii: dis…dokt. filol. nayk : 10.02.19 /
Laenko Lyudmyla Vladymyrovna. – Voronezh, 2005. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode:
http://www.dissercat.com/content/pertseptivnyi-priznak-kak-obekt-nominatsii.
8.
Rakhilina Е.V. Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnykh imen: semantika i sochetaemost /
Е.V. Rakhilina. – М. : Russkiye slovari, 2000. – 416 s.
9.
Skab М.V. Zakonomirnosti konzeptualizaziyi tа movnoyi kategoryzaziyi sakralnoyi
sfery. – Chernivtsi : Ruta, 2008. – 560 s.
10. Stepanov Y.S. Konstanty: Slovar russkoj literatury / Y.S. Stepanov. – М. :
Akademicheskij proekt, 2001. – 990 s.
11. Sternin I.А. Kognitivnaya interpretaziya v lingvokognitivnykh issledovaniyah /
I.А. Sternin // Voprossy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. – 2004. - № 1 (001). – s. 65-69
12. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. – Houghton
Mifflin Company, Copyright 2009. – Access mode :
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/ [AHDE]
13. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. – Cambridge University Press, 2001. –
Access mode : http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ [CALD]
14. Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus. – Harper Collins Publishers, 2012. – Access
mode : http://www.collinsdictionary.com [CED]
15. Dictionary.com Unabridged. – Random House, Inc., 2008. – Access mode :
http://dictionary.reference.com. [DU]
16. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Fifth Edition. – Pearson Education
Limited, 2005. – Access mode : http://www.longmandictionariesonline.com/ [LDOCE]
17. Macmillan Dictionary.com. – Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2010. – Access mode :
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ [MD]
18. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. – Merriam Webster, Inc.,
2008. – Access mode : http://www.merriam-webster.com. [MWCD]
19. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. – Oxford University press, 2011. – Access
mode : http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/ [OALD]
20. Princeton University Dictionary. – WordNet 3.1: Princeton University, 2012. – Access
mode : http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ [PD]
21. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition. – Merriam Webster, Inc.,
2008. – Access mode : http://www.yourdictionary.com/ [WNWCD]