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unpublished manuscript «Несемантический компонент языковой информации»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.