Egocentric Semantic Opposition of “там” and “тут” and its Manifestations in the Ukrainian Language.

Abstract

The paper is based on the first-hand theoretical and practical research of the semantic opposition (SO) of “here” – “there” (Ukrainian: “тут” – “там”) and the mechanism of its transformation into “there” – “here” SO in the Ukrainian language. In terms of contextual and situational “there” – “here” SO manifestations the study considers pragmatic motivation of the speaker, which brings about the egocentric understanding of the nature of “there” – “here” SO.

The theoretical chapter focuses on the analysis and distinction between such concepts as linguistic anthropocentrism and egocentrism, it also provides for better understanding of linguistic egocentrism by introducing the concepts of «egocentric semantic opposition of ‘there’ – ‘here’» vs «egocentric semantic opposition of ‘here’ – ‘there’» and positioning “there” – “here” semantic opposition in the domain of linguistic knowledge of semantic oppositions.

The practical chapter identifies the natural “here” – “there” to “there” – “here” transformation in speech as well as presents the typological specifics of its semantics at both lexical and grammatical levels in various Ukrainian discourses.

The study also highlights the speaker’s role in verbal expression and the speech situation as the organizer and assessor of the verbal act, and factuality around it together making up the core of verbal acts.

Presented in the paper are specifics of such semantic and pragmatic categories as anthropocentrism and egocentrism as regards linguistic units and expressions in the Ukrainian language.

Anthropocentrism encompasses manifestations of the general human factor providing for human-oriented units in lexical, semantic, morphemic, grammatical language systems as the human is considered to be the center of factuality and the author of linguistic units generated by human consciousness to resemble human physical, psychic, and spiritual facets.

Indications to the human as a speaker and conscious subject with their desires, hidden motivations, judgements, attitudes, self-identifications in time/place/environment in linguistic meanings are referred to as egocentrism, which transpires in various semantic and pragmatic shades, components of meaning and particular occasions of speech enabling linguists to analyze linguistic unit meanings not only in relation to factuality (linguistic symbol – denotatum, referent) but also in terms of the egocentric principle (linguistic unit – speaker, “I”).

The study also establishes generic understanding of deixis in the language and speech, which contributes to detecting deicticity due to egocentric semantic element in linguistic units and expressions i.e. the trace of speaker’s attitude in the semantics of grammatical categories, lexical units, phrases, as well as broader contexts. It has been found that deicticity of language and speech lies not only in deictic words but also in deictic components of meanings of lexical units, constructions, grammatical categories, etc. referring to the speaker and explicating through the indication to location or the perceived (metaphoric) position “here” – “there”, their motivations, intentions, attitude to factuality and stated facts. Thus, the concept of deixis covers both lexical and cognitive in-depth semantic language system and underlies linguistic egocentrism.

It has been shown that depending on semantic aspect and lexeme usage specifics, the speaker’s pragmatic motivations in a particular speech situation the cognitive logical “here” – “there” SO, the opposition of speaker’s space and other space, when speaker’s position and interests prevail over the others’ may transform into the contrasting “there” – “here” SO, the speaker effecting, prioritizing the semantics of physical or mental distance from the speaker’s self.

Moreover, the language sample analyzed suggests that the transformed “there” – “here” SO is semantically most capacious, most abstract most primary whereas other SOs such as ‘distant’ – ‘close’, ‘external’ – ‘internal’, ‘invisible’ – ‘visible’, ‘somebody else’s – ‘my own’, ‘foreign’ – ‘home’, ‘he/she’ – ‘I’, ‘unwanted’ – ‘wanted’, ‘unknown’ – ‘known’, ‘earlier’ – ‘now’, ‘in the future’ – ‘now’, ‘don’t care’ – ‘care’, etc. are derivative of “there” – “here” opposition. Hence, “there” – “here” SO encompasses both the speaker’s physical space and the phenomena of mental and psychological nature (acceptance/unacceptance, participation/nonparticipation, good/bad, etc.) The practical chapter contains the study of “here” – “there” SO and the transformed “there” – “here” SO as well as its more specific variations at lexical, semantic, grammatical and language levels in Ukrainian discourses such as those of fairytales, folk songs, and commercials.