Учебное пособие 1876

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

brachte das Lazarettund Fahrgastschiff zum Sinken. Die Großmutter ist erschrocken, die Fledermaus hat das gemacht. Der Holzfäller hat heute nur zehn Bäume zum Fallen gebracht.

The objective of all these exercises is to ensure better repetition of the verbs being studied (both verbs of the pair), and their reproduction by students in typical situations. At the same stage, it is effective to use various mnemotechnical and game techniques selected by the teacher, taking into account the age, memory peculiarities of students and their level of language proficiency. Thus, the following tasks can be offered:

-for memorizing and reconstruction, texts in which the verbs of the causative pair are omitted (Lückentext) or in their place there are mnemonic picture diagrams (Bilderrätsel);

-rhymes put on the rhythm of the sentence, cf.: Sie hat das ganze Geldverschwendet, dasKleidbleibtwiederunvollendet; (it is important to highlight that students should learn to create their own rhymes using online services for selecting rhymes in the German segment of the Internet);

-mind maps with one of the causative verbs, for example, the verb senken: in the center is the verb itself or the question “Waskannmansenken?”; and there are rays with possible objects (in the direct, figurative sense) - denStein, dieStimme, etc .;

-pantomime: students receive cards with causative verbs and mime actions expressed by the verbs; another version of the game is a group dictation (in the place of the missing verbs, the teacher mimes the action with the help of gestures, facial expressions, movement) or pair dictation (students dictate the text to each other and mime it);

-role-plays aimed at moving objects in the room (for the group of legen / stellen / setzen

/hängen verbs): each participant receives a card with the object and its location, the student mimes this object, finds out where it should be, communicating with other “objects”, and then the host (the owner of the apartment) begins to plan where he/she will place this or that object, according to which the “objects” are moved.

When choosing mnemonic and game tasks, one should remember about such a feature of the memory as the selection and memorization of, first of all, the material that is in close connection with the students personally, their interests and those things that grab them. In addition, the more there are elements of humor, even absurdity, metaphorics in general, the better the text is remembered and thus, the grammatical structures contained in the text are better acquired; moreover, it affects the degree of originality and creativity of the students' own texts [12, p. 10].

The production of students’ own texts using the verbs being studied is the final stage prepared by language and speech training exercises, reconstruction of model texts, mnemonic and game exercises. Students can clearly see the difference between the verbs of the causative rows, relate the causativeness to the object in the accusative case, they are ready to use their knowledge and skills in independent speech practice. Beginners can still use a support, for example, an illustration, as a source of stimulus, a series of pictures, comics, etc. for the compilation of the story (group, pair work). Starting from B1 level, in our opinion, creative writing will be the best way to produce text. This can be a continuation / explanation of a mystical story suggested by the teacher (students complete it using causative verbs) or creating their own text using a model (or illustration, like any other stimulus), which presents individual causative verbs (letter, dialogue, history, report, etc.). Therefore, using the game of moving the objects that was mentioned above (for the verbs legen / stellen / setzen / hängen), the student can write his/her own text “on behalf of” this or that object (furniture) in the room, what, where and why they have moved; the student can also write about his/her plans, what and how he/she would change in his/her or someone else’s room and why.

Conclusion

Causation exists synchronically in the German literary language as a system of verbal oppositions that are different in lexical, semantic and syntactic features. The mechanism of internal flexion that was inherited from the Nostratic language and led to the formation of paired

84

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

verbs, lost its productivity, and thus, in today's linguistic evolution of the German literary language causation reveals a strong tendency towards analyticism: together with the historically established synthetic methods, there are possibilities to express this functional-semantic categories mainly by means of transivisation of verbal stems. Therefore, it is possible to observe the evolutionary mobility, first of all, of the right part of the logical scheme, which, nevertheless, does not violate the mechanism of binary-modulative correlation (the coexistence of oppositions in which the subsequent (B) logically comes from the previous (A), i.e. it is modulated), although it makes it less recognizable for both native speakers and students.

In our opinion, for successful mastering of German causative verb pairs, the most effective approach is moving from problem statement to its solution. The student starts with the texts containing causative verbs for their introduction and analyzing, then goes through a system of more complex training exercises and finishes with independent production of original texts, which corresponds to the above stated learning “from systematicy to communication”. An important role in consolidating the causative verbs is played by the techniques of mnemonics and games and various creative tasks that solve the problem of transition from system to function.

References

[1]Hentschel E., Vogel P. M. (Hrsg.) Deutsche Morphologie (de Gruyter Lexikon). Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. 479 S.

[2]Stepanova M.D., CHernyshyova I.I. Leksikologiya sovremennogo nemeckogo yazyka: uchebnoe posobie. M.: Akademiya, 2003. 256 s.

[3]Krause O. Progressiv im Deutschen. Eine empirische Untersuchung im Kontrast mit

Niederländisch und Englisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2002. 255 S.

[4]Kobenko YU.V. Sbornik uprazhnenij po nemeckim kauzativnym glagolam: uchebnometodicheskoe posobie. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta, 2012. 29 s.

[5]Enzinger S. Kausative und perzeptive Infinitivkonstruktionen. Syntaktische Variation und semantischer Aspekt. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2010. 274 S.

[6]SHendel's E.I. Prakticheskaya grammatika nemeckogo yazyka: uchebnik. 2-e izd., ispr. M.: Vysshaya shkola, 1982. 400 s.

[7]Kobenko YU.V., Karpova N.A. Mif ob otdelyaemyh pristavkah v nemeckom yazyke

//Mir lingvistiki i kommunikacii: ehlektronnyj nauchnyj zhurnal. № 1, 2018. S. 80–95.

[8]Schweikle G. Germanisch-deutsche Sprachgeschichte im Überblick. 5. Aufl. Stuttgart, Weimar: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 2002. 283 S.

[9]Leipold A. Verbableitung im Mittelhochdeutschen. Eine synchron-funktionale Analyse der Motivationsbeziehungen suffixaler Verbwortbildungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006. 368

S.

[10]Mustajoki A. Teoriya funkcional'nogo sintaksisa: ot semanticheskih struktur k yazykovym sredstvam. M.: YAzyki slavyanskoj kul'tury, 2006. 512 s.

[11]Koprov V.YU. Semantiko-funkcional'nyj sopostavitel'nyj sintaksis v kommunikativno orientirovannom prepodavanii RKI // Russkij yazyk i kul'tura v prostranstve Russkogo mira. Materialy II Kongressa Rossijskogo obshchestva prepodavatelej russkogo yazyka i literatury. Sankt-Peterburg, 26–28 oktyabrya 2010 g. T. 2. SPb.: Izdatel'skij dom

«MIRS», 2010. S. 17–22.

[12]Gerngroß G., Krenn W., Puchta H. Grammatik kreativ. Materialien für einen lernerzentrierten Grammatikunterricht. Berlin, München: Langenscheidt, 1999. 160 S.

85

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

Analysed sources

[1*] DWDS – Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, URL: https://www.dwds.de/

(vremya obrashcheniya – 15.11.2018).

[2*] Lüdemann D. Einfach mal in den Impfpass gucken // Die Zeit, 08.01.2018, URL: https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2018-01/masern-impfung-verdreifachung-gesundheit- rki-zahlen-eltern-kinder-epidemie (vremya obrashcheniya – 16.11.2018).

[3*] Stehen und stellen // Language Mining Company, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU5mdvWpFG8 (vremya obrashcheniya – 17.11.2018).

86

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

UDC 811.111-26

LINKING MARKEMES IN BRITISH PROSE

OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

O.G. Artemova

Voronezh State Technical University

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages and Translation Technology

Olga G. Artemova

e-mail: olgaartemova65@yandex.ru

Statement of the problem. The paper aims at identifying and analyzing the markeme links in the texts of British writers of the first half of the nineteenth century. According to the purpose, the tasks of determining the preferred markeme links between the authors and semantic analysis of markeme links of maximum power have been solved. Results. The article presents the analysis of linking markemes in the reference to the specific centre of attraction in the texts of British prose writers of the first half of the nineteenth century. Using the method of visualization the links between literary contemporaries the author identified a centre of attraction, zero-order, first-order and se- cond-order intermediate centres, determined total centripetal links capacity of the centre of attraction, performed stratification and analysis of the linking markemes, studied markeme specificity of the centre and defined markemes which provide the indirect link between the centre of attraction and intermediate centres.

Conclusion. The algorithm of visualizing markeme relations between authors provided a means of revealing existing centrifugal and centripetal markeme links between the authors. It allows distinguishing the centre of attraction, identifying its major figures and determining writers who have direct and indirect markeme links of maximum power with each of them. Obtained data make it possible to calculate the power of the center of attraction and the semantic study of maximum power markeme links leads to the specification of both the intermediate centres that are represented by key figures of the centre of attraction and the centre of attraction itself.

Key words: markeme, Index of Textual Markedness, Index of Markeme Closeness, centre of attraction, markeme linking power, British prose, authors markeme distance visualization.

For citation: Artemova O.G. Linking markemes in British prose of the first half of the nineteenth century / O.G. Artemova // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2019. - №1 (24). –

P. 87-104

Introduction

The use of quantitative methods in linguistic studies continues the second century. In the middle of the 20th century, Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics formed the basis of a mathematical model that enabled to verify linguistic inferences, which allow numerical treatment [1]. Alongside, J. Zipf derived the laws, which described a statistic structure of natural language text. They allow extracting keywords from a frequency vocabulary of any text [2; 3]. The quantitative approach that modern linguistic studies employ makes possible to objectify study procedure, formulate reliable criteria of results evaluation, analyze linguistic corpora by means of computer technologies, structure data and develop mathematical and graphical models of studied objects [4; 5].

A.A. Kretov proposed one of the methods to objectify and formalize semantic analysis of any texts among which a literary text is above all. The base of the method is markeme analysis. Markeme analysis is a method of computer-based identification of keywords or markemes.

____________________

© Artemova O.G., 2019

87

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

Markemological approach to a literary text study enables solving a large number of research problems such as the study of individual authors’ literary works; the compilation of markeme

lists for one chronological interval or several chronological intervals to characterize a separate chronological interval or a historical interval, or a period, that includes several chronological intervals; the description of markemes specificity for individual authors or groups of authors; the study of markeme lexis evolution through several chronological intervals; the influence of social and cultural processes on markemes dynamics. What is more, markemological studies make it possible to establish literary and genetic links between authors who belong to the same or different chronological intervals and as a result to ascertain continuity in literature. To solve this problem, it is necessary to select mutual markemes from each author’s markeme list and calculate Index of Markeme Similarity (IMaS) [6; 7; 8].

Research methodology

The study subject is texts of 16 English writers of the first half of the 19th century. The works of Charlotte Brontë (BrCh), Ann Brontë (BrA), Edward Bulwer Lytton (Bul-Lyt), Elizabeth Gaskell (Gkl), Benjamin Disraeli (DisB), Isaac Disraeli (DisI), Thomas Carlyle (Crl), Thomas De Quincey (Qcy), Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Cdge), Charles Lamb (Lmb), Frederick Marryat (Mrt), Charles Robert Maturin (Мtn), Walter Scott (Sct), William Makepeace Thackeray (Thck), William Hazlitt (Hzl), Mary W. Shelley (ShelM) were chosen for this analysis (contracted notations of the authors that we use in this paper are given in brackets). The texts for the analysis are taken from the collection in Project “Gutenberg” [1*]. The total number of words is 26 189 475.

The study object is markeme links in literary texts of British prosaic writers of the first half of the 19th century (henceforward 19-1).

The method of markeme analysis [9; 10], which gives the opportunity to formalize semantic analysis, enables to study a markeme composition of literary works. To provide such an analysis it is primarily necessary to extract markemes from the word list and compute their In-

the word in the text, the higher its InTeM is. InTeM value becomes positive when relative frequency statutory limits for the word of such length exceeded. Therefore, in linguistics InTeM value means the level of textual significance of each individual word for a particular text.

To compute InTeM the texts of each author were collected into an integrated text file and processed with English lexis analysis manipulation program "ProTemAL-Engl" (producer

– A.S. Guselnikova, project manager – I.E. Voronina, D.Sc. (Engineering), research advisor – D.Sc. (Philology)). The program enables both computing InTeM and ranking words in descending order of their InTeM values. All available in digital form texts of each author were processed to compute InTeM [11].

Positive InTeM value is an obligatory but not a single criterion to identify a word as a markeme. A markeme is one keyword out of many other keywords of the author that makes possible to approach understanding the aim of writing the text. Therefore as a markeme source, we consider a noun as the least specified and focused on non-language reality part of speech. A potential markeme has to pass through the system of special filters - grammatical, grammar and semantic, thematic and semantic, stylistic, dialogue, classifying (for detailed information refer to [12]. It has been found realistic to extract 50 markemes for one author. Thus, a markeme is one of 50 words that passed through all the filters and are ranked in descending order of their maximum InTeM value. Comparative markeme analysis needs normalizing each markeme In-

TeM in the author’s markeme list. This allows balancing the difference in text length for each 88

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

author as it is the length of the text that influences the InTeM value. We propose normalizing of InTeMs in each author's markeme list according to the formula:

, where NormInTeM - normalized InTeM, i - the number of

a markeme in the author's markeme list.

In this way, NormInTeM is the ratio of markeme InTeM to total InTeM (TotInTeM) of all markemes in the author’s markeme list. When InTeM of the 50th markeme coincides with InTeM of one or several following markemes the last value of i is the number of the last one. Values of markemes NormInTeMs lie in the range 0 – 1. This procedure allows markeme weights comparability for all authors.

To solve the problem of distinguishing markeme links of maximum force between the authors of 19-1 when comparing them with each other it is necessary to study linking markemes, which provide markeme links between two or more authors and characterize the level of markeme similarity of all the authors of the chronological interval. When identifying linking markemes only mutual markemes for each pair of authors are considered. The source of mutual markemes is each author markeme list.

Next IMaS should be calculated for mutual markems in each pair of the authors. IMaS is a quantitative parameter that makes possible determining the level of two authors’ markeme

total normalized InTeM of mutual markemes in the pair. The values of IMaS lie in the range 0

– 1.

Let us consider the pair Charlotte Brontë – Ann Brontë. TotNormInTeM of Charlotte Brontë’s mutual markemes (MM) is 0.5718 and TotNormInTeM of Ann Brontë’s MM is 0.5611. Hence, IMaS value of 0.321 rounded to three decimal places is at the intersection of the line "BrCh" (Charlotte Brontë) and column 1 "BrA" (Ann Brontë) in Table 1. Table 1 presents IMaS values for each pair of authors.

The linking markemes are the markemes of that pair of authors in which IMaS is the largest for one or both authors. The value of IMaS characterizes the force of markeme link between two authors. If IMaS is the largest for one author, we get oriented link of maximum force.

In case the largest value of IMaS for Author 1 (Scott) is at the intersection with Author 2 (Marryat) and the largest value of IMaS for Author 2 (Marryat) is at the intersection with Author 1 (Scott), we call such a link between Author 1 and Author 2 a mutually oriented link.

Table 1. Indices of Markeme Similarity for the authors of 19-1.

89

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

As we use IMaS as the unit of measurement the force between the authors, then determining the largest value of IMaS in each horizontal line, we ascertain the force of maximum vector link between the authors.

For instance, Charlotte Brontë (line “BrCh”) being the initial mark, we find that her maximum IMaS 0.35 that indicates the maximum markeme vocabulary similarity of two authors is in column “DisB”. Hence, Charlotte Brontë points at Benjamin Disraeli. In such a way, we draw an oriented graph from Charlotte Brontë to Benjamin Disraeli. Similar data are taken from each line.

Research results

If we take into account only the links of maximum force in each pair of authors, we could draw a graph, which depicts major vector links and their force between the authors of 19- 1. In doing so for each author we identify another author who is next to him by IMaS. Further study based on the analysis of those markemes that couple the authors (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Graph of preferred links between the authors of 19-1

Determining the links of maximum force makes possible analyzing the linking force of markemes in reference to Centers of Attraction (CA). A CA is a group of authors whose links are mutually oriented. Hence, among English writers, one CA (Scott-Marryat) could be distinguished. This provides the possibility to identify markemes, which link each author with major figures of his/her center and determine the magnitude of the linking force for each markeme of the chronological interval.

The graph illustrates that Benjamin Disraeli, Bulwer Lytton, Isaac Disraeli, Lamb, and Mary Shelley have both centrifugal and centripetal links. We consider a link as a centrifugal one when it is oriented from a given author toward the author whose IMaS is the closest. Those

90

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

links that are oriented towards the CA are called centripetal in reference to this center of attraction. Those authors who have such links form Intermediate Centers (IC) – Benjamin Disraeli, Bulwer Lytton, Isaac Disraeli, Lamb, Mary Shelley. In the graph, four ICs (Benjamin Disraeli, Bulwer Lytton, Isaac Disraeli, Lamb) are linked with CA directly, so they are called ICs of the first order (IC-1). The link between IC Mary Shelley and CA is provided through IC-1 Lamb, therefore, IC Mary Shelley is called IC of the second order (IC-2). The major figures of CA Scott and Marryat comprise the ICs of a zero order in reference to each other. In the periphery of the graph, there are authors who have no centripetal links – Thackeray, Charlotte Brontë, Coleridge, Hazlitt, Maturin, Anne Brontë, and Carlyle. We call them terminal authors (the farthest authors from IC).

Linking markemes analysis implies distinguishing core and peripheral markemes of CA and establishing the power of its centripetal links. In doing that we use the value of Total Weight of Markeme Link in all the pairs of authors (TotLWeight) and to determine the CA power we compute Integral Linking Weight (InLWeight) for markemes of major figures of CA. The formula for computing InLWeight is as follows:

InLWeight TotLWeight Qm ,

where TotLWeight – total weight of markeme links, Qm – the number of links the given

markeme provides. The value of TotLWeight equals numerically the value of total normalized InTeM of a markeme in all the links it serves. In the process of the analysis, we consider the principle of links and weights “inheritance”. This makes possible to identify markeme links between terminal authors and CA. The “inheritance” of links takes place through IC and lies in accounting the linking weight of those markemes, which are mutual for terminal authors and the authors united into CA. For instance, consciousness is a linking markeme in the pair Col- eridge-Bulwer Lytton, but it is also a linking markeme in the pair Bulwer Lytton-Scott. Therefore, we consider consciousness as a markeme that passes through IC Bulwer Lytton and has two links. Hence, when entering IC-0 Scott linking weight of consciousness totals its linking weight at Coleridge’s (0,0253) and Bulwer Lytton’s (0,0245):

(the weight of the markeme coming from each of the authors is given in brackets). Accordingly, InLWeight consciousness equals when it enters IC-0 Scott. TotLWeight and InLWeight of all markemes that pass through IC should be calculated the similar way.

First let us determine core and peripheral markemes, which provide the link of maximum force in the pairs of authors, and then calculate the markeme power of CA. 16 vector links of maximum force including 14 centrifugal and 2 mutually oriented links link all the writers. 86 markemes provide these links and the total number of their use is 410. The average number of markemes per one link (26) quantifies the link Charlotte Brontë-Benjamin Disraeli. One markeme less (25) accounts for the link Mary Shelley-Lamb. The number of markemes above the average belongs to the following links: Hazzlit – I. Disraeli (27), Thackeray – B. Disraeli (28), Lamb – Marryat (28), de Quincy – Marryat (28), I. Disraeli – Scott (28). They are followed by A. Brontë – Lamb, Gaskell – Scott whose number of markemes is 29, then Bulwer Lytton – Scott – 30 and B. Disraeli – Scott – 31. A maximum number of markemes – 32 – establishes mutually oriented link Scott – Marryat. The minimal number of markemes (20) quantifies the link Maturin – Lamb. It is followed by two links in order of increasing the number of markemes: Coleridge – Bulwer Lytton (22), Carlyle – M. Shelley (23). Table 3 presents the full list of markemes ranked according to the number of links, which each markeme serves.

Table 3. Markeme distribution according to the number of links they serve

92

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 1 (24), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

Figure 4 illustrates markeme distribution according to the number of links they serve. Figure 4. Markeme distribution according to the number of links they serve

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

The markeme list includes 86 markemes taken from the consolidated markeme list consisting of each author markeme list. Considering their repetition in the markeme lists of different authors the consolidated markeme list totals 232 markemes. Our list includes only those markemes that are present in the markeme lists of at least two authors and together with other mutual markemes demonstrate maximum IMaS for that pair.

Considering the number of each markeme links, we could provide their preliminary rank-

ing.

Average of the number of links being 4.8, five links could be established as a lower limit of core markemes number. This is about 2/3 of all established links. Thirty markemes serve all core links. Average of the number links being 10.2, 13 markemes that serve 11 and more links constitute the small core.

In studied links, there are no consistent markemes, which are present in all links. Markemes consciousness and difficult(y/ies) serve the maximum number of links 15 (of 16). According to the number of links they are followed by consideration, imagination, recollection, understanding – 14, contemplation, disappointment, opportunity, satisfaction – 13, indifference – 12, astonishment, reconciliation – 11, acknowledg(e)ment, confidence, determination, encouragement – 10, gratification, independence, indignation, mortification – 9, observation, responsibility – 8, destruction, dissatisfaction, intelligence, resolution – 7, interference, misunderstanding, self-preservation – 5.

The rest 56 markemes are peripheral ones and form 1-4 links. Average of the number of links 1.84 allows classifying 25 markems that form 2-4 links as the small periphery markemes and 31 markemes that form one link as the large periphery markemes. Thus accomplishment, conscience, disinterestedness, insensibility, respectability, superstition – 4; admiration, condescension, consternation, contradiction, embarrassment, existence, experience, friendship, hospitality, magnificence – 3; affection, assistance, consolation, excitement, remembrance, self-

93