4. Complex operational structures
With few exceptions (clichés, idioms, quotations, borrowed phrases, fragments seared into one’s memory) information conveyed in speech is every time created from picked ad hoc meanings. Complex operational structures control this process together with the other well-known factors, such as grammar usage, semantics or stylistic and pragmatic factors. According to our research of the Russian language, complex structures cover the main ways of grammatical sentence formation, which we described with 37 groups of operational structures11In our unpublished manuscript «Несемантический компонент языковой информации» [Nonsemantic component of linguistic information] the combining of simple structures in Russian is implemented: By using two identical structures (like the structure of NoI and that of AjI) or structures between the states of which a relation of unification or equivalence is established; by using a nominal structure with VeI or a verbal structure with minimal VeI.. The list of simple structures of a language and the modes of combining them to create complex structures form a closed system, which represents its distinctive characteristic. Relying on this research, we think that the analysis with operational strictures is applicable to other languages. Our supposition is based on the premise that the noun, verb and interjection are, according to typology data, universal from isolating to synthetic languages and so are their structures while the other operational structures are their derivatives.
There are two main ways of forming complex operational structures: by means of single – noncoupled quantitative or elective – operations, establishing a corresponding relationship between the information unit operational structure and a single state, and by connecting simple structures. Although the single operations are represented by nonsemantic information, they are for the most part detectable in speech thanks to their association with symbols.
One of the single elective operations is negation. The negationEx  → Ex of a VeI x means that it gets an elective state without information support that substitutes its derivative elective state. Together with the remaining quantitative state, the elective state of the operation characterizes the new unitx with operational information. So one can assert that the quantitative states of VeI and the new unit are equivalent: Qx  = Qx . Thus, its substitution introduces an elective state without information support and a quantitative state equivalent to the derivative state of the unit information. In the sentence Trust funds are not admissible , for example, the lack of information support of the elective state introduced by negation signifies the cancellation of the VeI and introduction of operational information with a quantitative state equivalent to the VeI one, or – in other words – of nonsemanticquantitative information equivalent in parameters to the VeI.
One of the single quantitative operations is hyponymization . There is no special symbol to express it in English, Russian and other European languages (cf. the izafat in Turkic languages), but it plays an important role in forming complex structures.
The hyponymization of an information unit x is determined by the relation Qx  < Qx <, meaning that x gets an introduced quantitative state which is including with respect to its derivative quantitative state and characterizes missing information. So its hyponymization introduces a quantitative state which has no information support while the elective state remains the same (Ex  ⊥ Ex <). It means that the hyponymized unit gets operational information superior in parameters to its semantic information. We will say that it gets aquantitative information increment .
It is important to emphasize that there is no question of real information resulting the hyponymization, there is only an indication of the parameters that there must be more information in the unit than it has. Let us clarify our point of view in contrast to the available researches of quantitative relations in language. John Lyons (1977: 45) notes: “Signal-information content, as measured by the mathematical theory of communication, has frequently been referred to as surprise-value; and it is this aspect of the theory, if any, which links the two senses of ’information’, which we are distinguishing by means of the terms ’signal-information’ and ’semantic information’. … ”Man bites dog”, as they say, is a more significant item of news than ”Dog bites man””. In his Axiomatic Semantics , which “is a theory for the description of the wholly fixed-conventional information values of linguistic signs (in their capacity of being paradigmatic entities in grammar as well as fully fledged signs)” (p. XXVII), Sandor G.J. Hervey (1979) writes: “The relations of hypero-hyponymy, synonymy and paronymy are defined in ”axiomatic semantics” in terms of set-theoretical relations holding between classes of entities — denotata (131)”. And further: “Thus, giving the information that a given sign belongs to one another of these classes proves to be an economical way of distinguishing the ”meaning” of that sign from that of many other signs” (146). Then he inquires (see, for example, p. 162, 164) whether the word is used as a hyponym of another word. So, information quantity can be viewed either in regard to preservation of conveyed signal or as to degree of message novelty or else when comparing the meanings of different words. The relations between word meanings are numerous and vary from one part of speech to another. As Gabriella Vigliocco and David P. Vinson (2005) notice: “Huttenlocher and Lui [Huttenlocher, J. & Lui, F. 1979. The semantic organization of some simple nouns and verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 141-179] proposed that these two content domains are differentially organized: words referring to objects would be organized hierarchically, whereas words referring to events would have a matrix-like organization without well-defined levels of structure” (19). The authors cite Miller, G. A. & Fellbaum, C. [Miller, G. A. & Fellbaum, C. 1991. Semantic networks of English. Cognition, 41, 197-229]) view: “In Wordnet, ʻnouns, adjectives and verbs each have their own semantic relations and their own organisation determined by the role they must play in the construction of linguistic messagesʼ (p.197). These relations and organisation are constructed by hand based on the relations that are believed to be relevant within a given class of words. For nouns the most important roles are typically played by relations including synonymy, hierarchical relations and part-whole relations. For verbs, instead, dominant are troponymy (hierarchical relations related to specificity in manner), entailment, causation and antonymy. Some evidence compatible with a different role of relations such as cohyponymy and antonymy for nouns and verbs comes from spontaneously occurring semantic substitution errors” (22).
Unlike semantic relations, the operational relations for an information unit comprise only two states – initial and derivative. An operation can be applied to a derivative state of the unit. Its fulfillment can be caused by a subordinate word information due to the fact that in the relation with the principal word its derivative state includes that of the principal word information. We will say that the subordinate word information is an equivalent of the principal word quantitative information increment and that the principal word information is a hypernymic base of the increment. The presence of a subordinate word serves to confirm that an operation with the principal word information structure is being conducted. The operational quantitative relations we deal with are not mathematical values and for that reason can’t be measured. That’s why no quantitative comparison between the parameters of two information units can be made.
In the sentence
(5) With a higher soil pH the element phosphorus and others becomes more available for absorption by plant roots
(borrowed from Meyer 1992: 20) it’s the NoI element that serves as a hypernymic base for the NoI phosphorus and is hyponymized. In case of two information units which structures form a complex structure, their operational relation characterizes a syntactic link between them. In the phrases an oak tree, a fruit tree, a forest tree the NoI tree is hyponymized. In all these phrases the subordinate word information derivative state includes that of the principal word information and the subordinate word information has the principal word information (element and tree , respectively) as its hypernymic base. In the phrase good boy the adjective information (AjI) Δn (which operational structures, unlike the noun ones, have no hypernymic base) serves as the NoI’s increment equivalent: n Δn . The AjI’s hypernymic base is determined by the principal NoI. An increment information equivalent has an influence on the hypernymic base NoI and can leave it without change (e.g., a white mouse : the base ʻmouseʼ) or provoke its change and even its replacement by the increment information (a mouse photographed , drawn or invented by a writer : The base is ʻphotoʼ, ʻdrawingʼ, ʻimageʼ, but not ʻmouse as a living creatureʼ). Accordingly, the object recognized by NoI can change with the base: a fake gun (the example borrowed from Lakoff 1982: 37) is a forgery of the gun (resembling it but not a gun);a wooden leg is a device that compensates the lost leg (but is not a human leg). Hyponymization takes place if the NoI remains the base of the noun phrase information, i.e. if the NoI remains intact like inwhite mouse , or at least if the noun phrase information can’t be determined without the initial NoI, like in fake gun ,wooden leg – cf.: a hot dog , where dog can’t be determined as a hypernymic base and therefore hyponymization is not determined either.
So, the noncoupled single operations establish a quantitative or elective relationship between the information unit operational structure and a single state by creating a new unit based on the substitution (negation) or inclusion (hyponymization) of states.
The other way of forming complex operational structures is connection of simple ones.
One of complex operational structures formed by unification of simple structures characterizes the information of common noun-verb sentences. The NoI’s elective state is unified, first, with the VeI’s initial elective state and then with its derivative elective state. It means that the NoI has been substituted while the VeI remains the same, denoting the object substitution (by itself, in particular). We will call a complex VeI-NoI structure forming the sentence information integration:
(6) En  ⊥ e 0v ,
En  ⊥ Ev  :
(En  ⊥ e 0v ) → (En  ⊥ Ev );
Qn  ≠ Qv ,
which implies that the NoI’s elective state unified with the VeI’s substituted state is substituted by the one unified with the VeI’s substituting state and which results so in a sequence of the unified states. Whereas in the case of hyponymization, one of the information units was principal, the VeI and NoI forming sentences are equitable. So each in turn serves as a hypernymic base for the other (we have denoted it by their non-equivalence: Qn  ≠ Qv ). The VeI-NoI integration is described by the same structural formula independently of their information (see the sentences (1)).
Due to the non-equivalence of the units’ including states, the NoI in the sentence A ball rolls , for example, gets an increment information equivalent as VeI:Qn < = Qnv(ʻa rolling ballʼ) and the VeI gets an increment information equivalent as NoI:Qv < = Qvn(ʻrolls like a ballʼ). An increment information adopts the structure of the hyponymized item, namely, (v ) innv adopts the nominal structure of AjI:Q (v ) = Q Δn , and (n ) in vn , the structure of a parametric (gradable) adverb information AvI:Q (n ) = Q Δv . The resulting integral information recognizes a situation which represents the process as limited by the properties of the object, and the object, as passing succeeding moments of the lasting process. So, the increment information of NoI with VeI causes its increment also with nominal informationn Δn (v ): The nominal information constituting the NoI’s increment recognizes qualities lent to the object by the process (i.e. NoI recognizes an object identified in process). Cf.: ʻa man standingʼ (The man stands ) and ʻa man sittingʼ (The man sits ), where different attributes of the man are recognized – his posture, holding on different body parts, different muscle tension, readiness for mobility, etc. The increment information of VeI with NoI causes its increment with verbal informationv Δv (n ): The verbal information constituting the VeI’s increment recognizes qualities lent to the process by the object (how does the object do it?). Cf.: ʻstands like a manʼ (One player stands in the middle of the room ) and ʻstands like a treeʼ (The tree stands there ), where different attributes of the process are recognized – staying legs on the floor or roots in the ground.