Paradigmatic class as an element of the language system

Vinogradov Sergey ORCID: 0000-0001-5321-4932 Doctor of Philology Professor, Department of Modern Russian Language and General Linguistics, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603000, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Bolshaya Pokrovskaya str., 37 vinogradov54@mail.ru

Introduction

F. de Saussure, characterizing various aspects of the language system, used the term "associative relations" to characterize a "virtual, mnemonic series", the elements of which "do not rely on extension, are localized in the brain and belong to the treasure stored in the memory of each individual, which is language" ^{[16, pp. 155 - 156]}. Interestingly, to describe syntagmatic relations, Saussure uses linguistic terms and concepts, and when explaining associative relations, he focuses on the psychological aspects of the content expressed by the terms "associative", "associate", "association", "memory", "mnemonic series". Of course, the use of psychological terminology is justified if the psychological foundations of the language mechanism (language system) are studied. But if the subject of the study is actually linguistic phenomena, then their conceptualization should include linguistic concepts.

The first step towards a linguistic understanding of associative relations is to replace the adjective "associative" in the term with the adjective "paradigmatic" ^{[7, p. 71]}. The lexical units "paradigm", "paradigmatics", "paradigmatic class" reflect linguistic phenomena – elements of the system and structure of the language. B.N. Golovin characterizes the linguistic reality associated with paradigmatics and syntagmatics in the following way: "Any paradigm, at any level of the linguistic structure, is a set of options united by a common stable invariant and naturally alternating in the process of speech functioning of the language. The members of the same paradigm are connected by the identity of the invariant and are opposed by certain differences. The members of the paradigm are chosen by the speaker or the writer, depending on the communicative tasks of the utterance, as well as the structural properties of the members and the paradigm as a whole. In other words, the members of the paradigm function in speech and enter into syntagmatic relations in it. They exist in the structure of language and cannot simultaneously occupy the same place in the flow of speech, the structure of which, unfolding over time, chooses, at each step of its movement, one of the members of a particular paradigm" ^{[1, p. 205]}. In this understanding, a functional approach to the definition of a variant is found. "Variants can have a very different sound shell ... However, if they have identical functions and are able to replace each other in a scientific text, then such units can be recognized as variant..." ^{[14, p. 17]}. Being signs of a language, variants have a two–way essence - a plan of content and a plan of expression. The invariant also has a symbolic nature. It is impossible to analyze it without formulating an invariant, without designating it in various linguistic forms. V.M. Solntsev defines an invariant as an abstract designation of the same entity in abstraction from its specific modifications (variants) ^{[10, pp. 80-81]}. "As a name, an invariant has a verbal form of existence" ^{[10, p. 81]}. At the same time, V.M. Solntsev gives the following formulation: "An invariant is always an abstraction, a concept that reflects the general properties of a class of objects inherent in this class in a given period of time" ^{[15, p. 32]}. It follows from this that an invariant is both a concept (i.e., an ideal entity) and a name (i.e., a word or other designation having a material side). So, the manifestation of a paradigmatic relationship is a set of invariant-united linguistic units (let's call it a paradigmatic class), from which in the process of communication, one of the units is selected at each step.

The purpose and methods of the study

The purpose of this article is to consider the structural and functional properties of a paradigmatic class based on the material of lexical units. Attention to the paradigmatic class is due to the fact that it plays a very important role in the performance of a cognitive function by language, more specifically, in solving problems that arise in the process of thinking and using language. The choice of a paradigmatic option is a problem, and the chosen paradigmatic option is the solution to this problem ^{[4, p. 10]}. Thus, the paradigmatic series is a model of the problem of choice carried out in the process of language functioning. The article uses general linguistic methods of observation and description, as well as methods of discursive and cognitive analysis, semiotic methods and methods of language modeling.

Properties of the paradigmatic class and tools for its research

In linguistics, numerous nominations have been used and are being used, naming various paradigmatic classes of words: thematic group, associative group, functional-semantic group, field, conceptual field, paradigmatic field, paradigmatic series, etc. Other subsystems of the language also have similar groupings of units. For example, in morphology, the term "paradigm" is used to denote them - a variety of forms of inflection.

Structurally and systemically, a paradigmatic class is a set of linguistic units (variants) connected by an interchange relation and united by an invariant. The variant-invariant structure and the manifestation of its functioning as a choice of a linguistic unit at each step of speech deployment are necessary, constitutive properties of a paradigmatic class. From a meaningful point of view, the invariant contains the meaning (content) inherent (inherent) for each option. A simple example of a paradigmatic class is a synonymous series (for example, red, crimson, crimson, scarlet), the units of which can replace each other in speech and are combined by an invariant unit (for example, the phrase having a red color).

Being a language subsystem, the paradigmatic class includes sign units and is itself a complex sign. In this capacity, he is an observable entity. Examples of the observed paradigmatic classes, in addition to the synonymic series, are a set of lexical units in the dictionary entry of an ideographic dictionary (thesaurus), speech poetic oppositions in the text of poetic works ^{[19, p. 204],[11, p. 51]}, vocabulary choices in drafts ^{[5, p.45-50]}, lexical variants, arising in various translations of the same foreign language text into Russian ^{[3, pp. 36-37]}. All these observable objects, considered as paradigmatic classes, require certain research tools.

First, paradigmatic classes are modeled by mathematical objects such as sets. Therefore, mathematical set theory can be used in their study.

Secondly, a paradigmatic class is modeled by a set with fuzzy boundaries. A fuzzy set as a mathematical object is characterized by the fact that each of its elements is assigned a certain number – an affiliation function expressing the "degree of occurrence" of this element in the fuzzy set. The meaningful interpretation of the membership function may vary, but the most common interpretation is probability (or likelihood) the fact that the element to which the membership function is assigned belongs to some fuzzy set. The use of the apparatus of fuzzy sets in linguistic descriptions is one of the ideas of mathematical linguistics ^{[13, pp. 6, 12, 359-361]}. Modeling a paradigmatic class As a fuzzy set, it implies a different "degree of confidence" that some element (some linguistic unit) is included in this paradigmatic class. The fuzzy qualification of linguistic facts is a characteristic feature of linguistic classifications, including synonymous classes. For example, D.N. Shmelev wrote: "... in the interpretation of synonyms and antonyms ... there is ... a subconscious confidence that synonyms and antonyms are already the "realities" of the language given to the researcher, which are subject only to an adequate description. Meanwhile, the very position that there are no absolute synonyms in the language – a position repeated by various authors - forces us to perceive this category as to some extent a conditional designation of such linguistic phenomena that can be interpreted and named differently, depending on the accepted criteria. If, as a rule, there are no absolute synonyms in a language, then synonymy itself can, therefore, have a more or less pronounced character..." ^{[18, p. 115]}

Thirdly, paradigmatic classes arise as a result of the work of a linguistic mechanism that functions in different conditions, in different discourses, when solving various communicative tasks. This is the reason for the diversity of paradigmatic classes – their different concepts, interpretations, and characteristics. We have suggested language as a mechanism for generating sign systems. Paradigmatic classes are "private semiotic systems" generated by language ^{[2, p. 100]}, used in various communication conditions.

The above considerations allow us to identify a number of non-obvious properties of paradigmatic classes as objects of research. Any paradigmatic class is a subset of a certain set of linguistic units, which is called a universal set (in mathematics, it is commonly denoted by the Latin symbol U). For a researcher, U is a set that consists of all the elements of the area under study. It is natural to assume that the elements included in the class of paradigmatically related linguistic units form only a part of all the linguistic units available in the field under study. In different situations, the set of U's will be different. For example, when considering vocabulary, the set U can be the set of all words, when considering morphemics, the set of all morphemes, etc. Depending on the discourse, the scope of language use and the tasks of its description, the composition of the universal set varies. Russian Russian Russian Russian physical terms, for example, when studying Russian physical terms, a universal set may be a set of special vocabulary of the Russian language, or a set of lexical units (words and phrases) of the Russian language, or a set of Russian terms of exact sciences, etc.

Attention to the paradigmatic class as a subset of some universal set is due to the heterogeneity of the properties of the class elements. The nature of this heterogeneity is infinitely diverse and, in particular, is determined by the aspect of considering the subject of research, the point of view on it. For example, the elements of a fuzzy set are heterogeneous in terms of the "degree of confidence" of their inclusion in this set.

This heterogeneity is inherent both in the elements of the paradigmatic class and in the elements of other subsets of the universal set U. This heterogeneity leads to the following conclusions. First, there may be elements within a paradigmatic class that are paradigmatically related to other elements of this class with a low degree of confidence – practically zero. Secondly, the composition of U may include elements that are not included in this paradigmatic class, but with a certain non-zero degree of confidence can be included in it. The inclusion or non-inclusion of an element of a universal set in a paradigmatic class is a consequence of some observation. But it may turn out that some element of the universal set is not included in the paradigmatic class only because it was outside the observation of this class. If the paradigmatic class is an object of direct observation, and the remaining part of the universal set is not included in this object, then the characteristic of the elements of the set U is speculative, and the conclusion about the possible inclusion of elements U in the paradigmatic class is made "for general reasons". It follows that the object that we called the paradigmatic class has fundamentally fuzzy, blurred boundaries and the entry or non-entry of some element into the paradigmatic class is not obvious.

Here the question arises about the accuracy of observation and scientific description of the object, which we have called the paradigmatic class. Is it legitimate to scientifically describe an object whose boundaries are fundamentally vague and whose elements may not be observable for given observation conditions (i.e., for a dedicated paradigmatic class)? It seems that the very vagueness, the indistinctness of a paradigmatic class as an objectively inherent property of it can be the subject of linguistic research.

Let's consider the structure and functioning of the paradigmatic class using the example of A.P. Chekhov's short story "Horse Surname".

The plot of the story boils down to the following. Retired Major General Buldeev has an unbearable toothache. The doctor wanted to pull it out, but the patient refused. Then the clerk advised "to be treated with a conspiracy", for which he wrote a letter to a certain "miraculous gentleman" who became famous for his ability to spell his teeth. But the clerk forgot the healer's surname and remembered only that it was "a simple surname ... as if it were a horse's" ^{[17, p. 63]}. And everyone around them began to invent such surnames to help remember the healer's last name. The story ends with the fact that the clerk remembered the name he was looking for (Ovsov), but only after the general, unable to bear the torment, allowed the doctor to pull out a sore tooth.

This plot can be described in terms of paradigmatic relationships. The characters of the story face a problem, the solution of which boils down to the choice of a lexical variant (the desired surname). The invariant, which is the formulation of the problem, is "the surname associated with the concept of "a child". All possible suggested surnames are solutions to this problem. The set of lexical units embodying these variants is a paradigmatic class. In the emerging paradigmatic class there are many surnames motivated by "horse" nominations: Kobylin, Stallions, Foals, Kobylitsyn, Kobylyatnikov, Horse, etc. As part of the variants, many surnames are motivated by objects and phenomena related to the concept of "family" more or less indirectly: Korennoy, Korennikov, Priestyazhkin, Troikin, Uzdechkin. Rysisty, Zasuponin, etc. The invariant "surname associated with the concept of "family" is in a hierarchical relationship with more particular invariants. So, the surnames Gnedov and Bulanov have the invariant "surname related to the names of the horse suit", the surnames Korennikov, Priestyazhkin, Uzdechkin, Cheressedelnikov – the invariant "surname related to the names of concepts related to the use of horses". The above options are manifestations of cognitive activity in which the paradigmatic class participates. For this activity, not only the variants are important, but also their invariants, which make it possible to clarify or expand the scope of the paradigmatic class.

Of course, many "horse names" could not be given in a short story. A huge number of them belong to a universal set outside the paradigmatic class (cf. other possible "horse surnames" that are not mentioned in the story and therefore are not included in the paradigmatic class under consideration: Konev, Zherebin, Horsemen, etc.). On the other hand, the last names Kobelev, Konchenko, who approach the "horse", fell into the paradigmatic class"not by semantic content, but by other properties - in this text, obviously, by consonance with the words mare and horse. This shows the vagueness of the paradigmatic class as its essential property.

The surname Ovsov is important in this plot due to the fact that it is uncharacteristic in meaning for this paradigmatic class. Oats are cereals that are commonly used as fodder for horses and other animals. In comparison with other words from this paradigmatic series, the nomination of Oats is "less equine" than the above-mentioned surnames. The humor of Chekhov's story is largely due to the fact that the surname Ovsov turned out not to correspond to the reader's expectation. The formulation of the invariant, which sounded in the clerk's speech, directed the associations of participants in solving the problem partly along the wrong path. From the point of view of the structure of the paradigmatic class, the surname Ovsov appears on the periphery of the paradigmatic class of "horse surnames".

In the text of Chekhov's story, the analyzed "horse surnames" are not a virtual, mnemonic series in the Saussure sense, but turn out to be observable elements of the speech chain. But there is no contradiction in this, because the name of the paradigmatic class and the sequence of variants in the speech chain are, in a broad semiotic sense, units of different "languages" or different components of a linguistic sign. The enumeration of the elements of a paradigmatic class is designated for the name of a paradigmatic class and is deployed in a speech sequence. The expression horse surname denotes the surnames of Kobylin, Stallions, Foals, etc. The linear organization of speech in this case acts as one of the metalanguage means that allows you to express the designated object, the name of which is the paradigmatic class. This object is a set of listed surnames - the verbal content of the "horse surname" class. "Metalanguage use of language is usually associated with some difficulties of speech communication..." ^{[12, p.241]}. In the story about the "horse name", the difficulty of communication lies in how to concretize the general concept; to make this concretization, you need to choose one option from the listed ones, and this enumeration itself takes place in a linear the speech chain.

The structural and functional properties of the paradigmatic class discussed above reflect some mechanisms of creative solutions in cognitive activity. Yu.M. Lotman, formulating his idea of good poetry, wrote: "Good poems are those whose artificial generation is currently inaccessible to us, and the very possibility of such generation of which has not been proven" ^{[11, p. 130]}. It seems that in the considered plot, the possibility of the Ovsov lexeme entering the paradigmatic class is inaccessible to the observer (due to the unobservability of this element in the act of communication under consideration before the clerk remembered this surname), and the possibility of this surname has not been proven for the discursive situation "difficulty in remembering", which characterizes the specific discourse of this Chekhov story (a specific discourse is a single manifestation of private discourse, see ^[9],[6]). The emergence of a paradigmatic class is akin to artistic creativity, since some variants (representatives of the invariant) are in an unobservable universal set outside the paradigmatic class and therefore are not observable themselves, and the possibility of their inclusion in the paradigmatic class is not obvious (cf. surname Ovsov in the example considered earlier). When such an element is included in a paradigmatic class, the content of the invariant is modified to one degree or another. This is a manifestation of some creative action, the appearance of some new information that did not exist in the paradigmatic class and which arises as if "out of nothing" and becomes the property of a linguistic personality using the paradigmatic class as a tool of cognitive activity.

Conclusion

As a result of the analysis of the paradigmatic class, its structural and functional properties as an element of the language system are revealed. A paradigmatic class is a complex linguistic unit, like other units of a language, for example, a word-formation type, a word-formation nest, a word-formation paradigm. The complex nature of the paradigmatic class is manifested in the fact that its constituent parts are words, as in complex units of word formation. The general tendency of linguistic semantics is manifested in the fuzzy nature of the semantics of the paradigmatic class (cf. the asymmetric dualism of a linguistic sign, when some linguistic unit tends to acquire a new meaning, and some meaning tends to be expressed by a new linguistic unit ^[8]). The linguistic features of the paradigmatic class discussed in this article are that 1) its constituent units are words as lexemes and 2) its linguistic analysis seems to be inseparable from the discourse in which this class functions and from the private semiotic system (from the secondary modeling system) to which it belongs belongs to.