Daniela Shavardak
(Kamyanets-Podilskiy Ivan Ohiyenko National University)
Scientific Supervisor: M.V. Matkovska, Senior Lecturer
THE SEMANTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MAIN CHARACTERS’ DIALOGUES IN “HILLS LIKE WHITE ELEPHANTS” BY ERNEST HEMINGWAY
A characteristic feature of a word that distinguishes it from the usual set of sounds is the meaning in which the objectively existing reality is reflected. In modern linguistics, the meaning of a word is considered as a complex formation, as a multilevel structure characterized by the presence of interconnected substructures, as a multilayered complex, the constituents of which are actually semantic aspect (referential meanings of signs), pragmatic aspect (pragmatic meanings of signs) and syntactic aspect (intralingual meanings of signs).
The word itself is known to be the unity of the external (material) and internal (ideal) parties, i.e. it has a plane of expression (sound complex, significant) and a plane of content (meaning, significat). The relationship between the significant and the significat is related to the nomination, which is based on the relationship between
the lexical unit (sign, significant) and the real referent (significat). In the substantive side of the word distinguish lexical and grammatical meaning.
Meaning in lexical semantics, in turn, can be studied in two main directions: from the form (graphic or sound shell) of the word, ie the plane of expression, to its meaning, the plane of content, and vice versa. Accordingly, two aspects of lexical semantics are distinguished – semasiology and onomasiology.
The lexical meaning of a word is understood as a historically determined connection between the sound (graphic) complex of a word and the idea of an object or phenomenon that arises in our consciousness. In modern linguistics, it also refers to some semantic whole, which, however, consists of interconnected and interdependent parts or components. Accordingly, in modern linguistics the following components of lexical meaning are distinguished: signification, as a conceptual content of a linguistic sign, as a set of features of the subject of designation; denotation, as a set of objects of reality (things, properties, relationships, situations, states, processes, actions, etc.), which can be nominated by a particular language unit; as a class of objects having the same features, or as a set of features of a class of objects that identifies it with the corresponding value of the signification; referent, as an object of extra-verbal reality, which correlates with the linguistic sign in the system of speech or the act of speech; connotation, as an additional component of the meaning of the language unit, which complements its subject-logical content with subjective shades of evaluation, emotionality, expressiveness, functional and stylistic colour, as well as shades due to social, ideological, cultural, situational aspects of communication [2, p. 194–198].
In our research, in order to distinguish these 4 components of lexical meaning we apply such methods as semantic, structural and contextual analysis. Here is an example of such an analysis: The phrase “Sword of Truth” used to nominate an artifact have such a structure: N+of+N, where the first noun denotes an object, the artifact itself, and the second one denotes an abstract notion. Separately, this both words denote reality, but their capitalization in the text gives us a hint about its magicalness. The contextual analysis of the following context: “…price to using the Sword of Truth? … The payment is that you suffer the pain of seeing in yourself all your own evil… And you see the good in the one you have killed, suffer the guilt for having done so…” [1, p. 95]. This allowed us to point out the semantic components which form an external meaning of this name. Those components: pain, suffer, evil, death, reflect the negative connotation.
Stenning K believes that dialogical speech communication is perfectly acceptable to represent as a discourse generated by a collective speaking subject
[3, p. 234].
Scientists render dialogue as a type of discussion. “Dialogue is a conversation of two or more persons united by subject-practical activity” – as some linguists believe. When communicate by dialog, there is a persistent change in replicas, and that`s why we allow dialogue as a rhythmic process [2, p. 208].
Interlocutory conversation characterized by moment production, the speed and naturalness of the process of reflection of phenomena and situations of the objective world. In the case of thought by the subject not only yourself, but also your partner in a communication situation dialogue might involves the psychological interaction of partners.
In any dialogic conversation, we can say, a man acquires a special discursive method of thoughts that is a specific communicative system of semantically related speech acts.
People`s speech problems of interaction connected on the generation of speech and its understanding, as well as with the mental processing of information.
Sensation, perception, attention, memory, imagination and thinking are the main cognitive processes involved in the processing of input information during dialogue. Vision, hearing, touch, smell and taste reaches the brain through sensations that are the main source of knowledge and a requirement for the development of a person who perceives objects of surrounding reality.
Auditory perception is directly related to the process of dialogic speech and is significantly different from tactile and visual perception.
Thus, speech as a cognitive process includes: the transition from acoustic or graphic code to internal speech code; grammatical form; understanding of the general plan of expression; deciphering the syntactic structure, understanding the intention and motivation of the statement; evaluation of the received information (content of the statement).
REFERENCES
- Hemingway E. Hills Like White Elephants. [Електронний ресурс/E.Hemingway. Режим доступу https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/288179821/hills-like- white-elephants-ernest-hemingway-pdf
- Rosch E.H. Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 104. Р. 192–233.
- Stenning K. Methodical semanticism considered as a history of progress incognitive science. 1988. Р. 234–235.