4 Complex operational structures
With a few exceptions (clichés, idioms, quotations, borrowed phrases, fragments seared into one’s memory) information conveyed in communication is every time created from picked ad hoc meanings even though this is made easier by the fact that for each of the words there are many readily available examples of its use in combination with other words. 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 structures. The list of simple structures of a language and the modes of combining them to create complex structures form a closed system, which represents language distinctive characteristic. Relying on this research, we think that the analysis with operational strictures is applicable to other languages too. 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 operational structure of an information unit and a state of the operation, and by connecting simple structures. Although the single operations are carried out by non-semantic information, the necessity of their performing is mostly expressed by signs and therefore they are detectable in speech.
One of the single elective operations is negation. The negationEx  → Ex of avi x means that it gets an elective state alone (without semantic information) that substitutes its derivative elective state. Coupled with the remaining quantitative state, the elective state of the operation characterizes a new unitx with operational information , i.e., an information unit in which instead of semantic information only its quantity is noted. Because of the asymmetric relation of the elective states, the quantitative states of the vi and of the new unit are equivalent: Qx  = Qx (see the preceding section). In the sentence Trust funds are not admissible , for example, the lack of information of the elective state introduced by negation signifies cancellation of “are admissible” and introduction of operational information with a quantitative state equivalent to it. The presence of operational information is confirmed by the possibility of introducing the same quantity of semantic information (e.g., “are prohibited”) instead of it without violating the grammatical correctness of the sentence.
One of the single quantitative operations is hyponymization . There is no special symbol to express it in English, Russian and other European languages (cf. izafat in Persion or Turkic languages), but it plays an important role in forming complex structures and corresponding phrases.
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. Its hyponymization introduces a quantitative state without semantic information while the elective state remains the same (Ex  ⊥ Ex <). So the hyponymized unit gets operational information with a quantitative state superior to the one of the semantic information. We will say that it gets an operational information increment .
It is important to emphasize that there is no question of real information resulting the hyponymization, it’s just about operational, non-semantic information. Let us clarify our 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 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. 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). In contrast, we do not explore relationships that exist in language understood as Langue and are merely found in speech, but we do explore relationships that are formed only in speech.
Hyponimization can be caused by the presence of a subordinate word information. In this case its derivative state includes that of the principal word information and is equivalent to the state of its operational information. We will say that the principal word information is a hypernymic base of its increment with operational information. Only binary relations exist between operational states. Accordingly, operational information cannot be measured by a numerical value like the parameters of material objects.
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 noun informationni element that serves as a hypernymic base for the ni 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 ni 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 andtree , respectively) as its hypernymic base. In the phrasegood boy the adjective information (adji ) Δn (which, unlikeni , does not have its own hypernymic base) serves as the ni ’s increment equivalent:n Δn . The adji ’s hypernymic base is determined by the ni . An increment information equivalent has an influence on the hypernymic baseni 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 ni 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 theni remains the base of the noun phrase information, i.e., if the ni remains intact like in white mouse , or at least if the noun phrase information can’t be determined without the initial ni , 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 (we do not consider the rest of them in this article) establish a quantitative or elective relationship between the operational structure of an information unit 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 the connection of simple ones.
One of complex operational structures formed by unification of simple structures characterizes the information of common noun-verb sentences. The ni ’s elective state is unified, first, with the verb information initial elective state and then with its derivative elective state. It means that the ni has been substituted while the verb information (vi ) remains the same, denoting the object substitution (by itself, in particular). We will call a complexvi -ni structure forming the sentence information integration :
(6) En  ⊥ e 0v ,
En  ⊥ Ev  :
(En  ⊥ e 0v ) → (En  ⊥ Ev );
Qn  ≠ Qv ,
which implies that the ni ’s elective state unified with the vi ’s substituted state is substituted by the one unified with the vi ’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 vi andni 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 ). Thevi -ni 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, theni in the sentence A ball rolls , for example, gets an increment information equivalent asvi :Qn < = Qnv(ʻa rolling ballʼ) and the vi gets an increment information equivalent as ni :Qv < = Qvn(ʻrolls like a ballʼ). An increment information adopts the structure of the hyponymized item, namely, (v ) innv adopts the nominal structure ofadji :Q (v ) = Q Δn , and (n ) in vn , the structure of a parametric (gradable) adverb informationadvi :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 ni with vi causes its increment also with nominal informationn Δn (v ): The nominal information constituting the ni ’s increment recognizes qualities lent to the object by the process (i.e.,ni 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 vi with ni causes its increment with verbal informationv Δv (n ): The verbal information constituting the vi ’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.