The Functional-Semantic Field of Inchoativity: Contrastive Aspect

Abstract
The problem of systematic description of semantic categories has been considered in works of Oleksandr
Bondarko, Volodymyr Gak and Solomon Katsnelson. In this article the phenomenon of inchoativity is presented as a
semantic category and described with the help of the functional-semantic field theory by Oleksandr Bondarko in
1987. It is examined in two unrelated languages ,(English and Ukrainian,) on the basis of contrastive method. In

Comment [A1]: Article needed

Comment [A2]: It would be more appropriate

use last names only with dates in parentheses. Th
way your reader can find the works you are
referring to.

English, language the nuclear position of the functional-semantic field is occupied by analytical means of

Comment [A3]: Find a verb (past participle) to

put here

expression (auxiliary verbs with inchoative semantics). In Ukrainian, synthetic means are dominant (affixed means

Comment [A4]: Article needed

of derivation of verbs).

Comment [A5]: It is unclear whether what

follows here is more background information or a
summary of your findings. You should use some
reporting or meta-language to clarify this. At any
rate, somewhere in your abstract you should use
meta-language to refer directly to what YOU
accomplish in your study.

Keywords: semantic category, inchoativity, functional-semantic field, contrastive method,

analytical and synthetic means of expression.

Comment [A6]: THE English language OR Engli

with no article

Introduction
Increasing interest in the analysis of some semantic categories has heightened the
need for systematizing language means of expression within each category. The
systematic description of semantic categories has become a favourite topic of

Comment [A7]: Find another way to say this.

Suggestions: means of linguistic expression;
language use

analysis for many linguists like Gak (1976), Kasevych (1988), Bondarko (1990),
and Cheyf (1999). Inchoativity, as a semantic category, has gained an interest
among scholars who work in the field of functional linguistics.
Most studies of inchoativity belong to foreign and national linguists like
Mazon (1962), Avilova (1976), Kasevych (1988), Gak, (1999), Katsnelson (2002),
Bozhesku (2002), and Bondarko (2005). Although considerable research has been
devoted to the systematic description of this semantic category, rather less
attention has been paid to the organization of language means of expressing

Comment [A8]: See A6 below

inchoativity according to the principle of functional-semantic field, developed by

Bondarko (1984).
The purpose of this investigation is to organize language means of expressing
inchoativity in the functional-semantic field with the help of the contrastive
analysis of typologically unrelated languages: English and Ukrainian. I have

Comment [A9]: I think you mean categorize

Comment [A10]: Check a model article or COC

to see how language and linguistic are used
differently as adjectives in academic writing- it
might be different than in Ukrainian.

organized the rest of this paper in the following way: define the main steps of the
development of the functional linguistics;, examine the structure and functions of
the functional-semantic field; order, and compare language units of the functionalsemantic field of inchoativity in English and Ukrainian language.

Methods
The general method I focused on in this paper is contrastive method, because
it is the most productive method in the comparative practice of analyzing
typologically unrelated languages (Ukrainian and English). Language means of
expressing inchoativity were compared on the basis of the contrastive method,
revealing all differences and similarities between these two languages.
The field method, described by Ukrainian linguist Oleksandr Bondarko,
helps to represent the structure and components of the functional-semantic field,

Comment [A11]: Again, it would be more

academic in style to just include the last name an
the date.

which expresses invariant meaning and differentiation of central, semi-peripheral,

and peripheral elements within it.
The descriptive method was used to understand the historical process of the
development of functional and contrastive linguistics. The use of component

Comment [A12]: Is this in the right order? You

did this after what you describe above?

analysis clarifies the semantic structure of the functional-semantic field.

Linguistic modeling of constructive method helped to systematize language
units within the functional-semantic field of inchoatovity in both Ukrainian and
English.
Finally, the quantitative analysis was applied to summarize actual language
means with the help of tables, figures, and diagrams.

Results
After analyzing English language material (lexicographical sources) it
becomes evident that the functional-semantic field of inchoativity in English
consists of a core, close, and remote peripheries. In this paper, the analysis is made

Comment [A13]: Maybe you mean based on

by means of? Not sure whether you mean that y
linguistically modeled the constructive method, o
that you used the constructive method to
linguistically model something else.

Comment [A14]: I believe that method shou

take an article, but analysis does not always nee
one- check COCA for examples.

Comment [A15]: This is very choppy; consider

combining into one paragraph.

from semantics to formal means of expression, confirming the theory of

Comment [A16]: Is this from Bondarenko

(2005)?

Bondarko (Bondarko, 2005). Word-formative and lexical means of expression are

presented on different levels of the functional-semantic field. The major results are
given in Figure 1.

Figure 1. English functional-semantic field of inchoativity.

Considering the total amount of analyzed units, word-formative level

Comment [A17]: Missing article

occupies 94 % and the lexical one 6 %. The core of the functional-semantic field
of inchoativity in English occupies 72 % out of the whole field; close periphery
22%; and remote periphery 6 % .
Also of interest is the observation that the Ukrainian functional-semantic field
of inchoativity, due to analysis, has a different structure. Its structure is rather

Comment [A18]: Due to = because of: is this

really what you mean here?

typical. It consists of a core and periphery. Figure 2 shows these results of it.

Comment [A19]: Can you make this one

sentence?

Figure 2. Ukrainian functional-semantic field of inchoativity.

As seen from the Figure 2, 61, 6 % of Ukrainian

expression of inchoativity

language means of

are synthetic by nature. They occupy the nuclear

nucleus of the functional- semantic field of inchoativity. 38, 3 % are analytical

Comment [A20]: Find a better way to say this

cant you just say: expression of inchoativity in
Ukrainian is ? At this point, the reader knows y
mean expression through language.

means, which represent the periphery.

These results are consistent with the findings of available studies.

Comment [A21]: Combine with previous

paragraph.

Discussion
Semantic aspect of inchoativity is not a subject of specific studying. However,
the/its? grammatical aspect is presented on the basis of a? descriptrion of

Comment [A22]: Missing article

Comment [A23]: Not sure what you mean to
across here.

inchoative verbs (Bondarko, 2005; McNally, 2001; Shyur, 1974).

Inchoativity is a process of the beginning of the action, state, or transition
into another state of a verb (Spalatin, 1975). This semantic category is a
component of the beginning phase, which includes adjacent micro fields of
ingressivity and inceptivity.

Comment [A24]: This (and much of what is

below) seems like background information that
would be better to put in the introduction.

This paper focuses on describing language means of inchoativity withing the

functional-semantic field. According to Oleksandr Bondarko, the central area of

Comment [A25]: Youve already said this plen

of times; no need to repeat here.

any functional-semantic field should be occupied by grammatical means which

Comment [A26]: Not the right word: forms?

Features?

reflect the nature of semantic category. Analyzing the functional-semantic field of

inchoativity in English makes clear that its core reveals the analytical nature of the
language. In my work, I have found that the nuclear is occupied by ingressive and

Comment [A27]: Either nucleus or nuclear

position

copulative verbs: to begin, to start, to initiate, to become, to grow, to get, to fall, to

turn, to come, to make, to go. In general, the investigation shows that these words,
within the structure of collocation, express the inchoative nature of the beginning

Comment [A28]: Missing article

of some action or a state (McNally, 2001).

Another way of analytical expression of inchoativity in English is the use of
postpositives. For example, up: to clear up, to brighten up. Phrasal verbs make
collocations of this type rather vivid and expressive.
According to Oleksandr Bondarko, the periphery is mostly occupied by the
units, which lose their functional load (Bondarko, 2005). The data of my research

Comment [A29]: Check citation form

Comment [A30]: punctuation
Comment [A31R30]:

supports this idea. The close periphery in English is occupied by synthetic means
of expression which are not typical for this language, which is typologically
analytical. These synthetic means of expression are represented by prefixal and
suffix-prefixal formants. Examples could be: to meditate, to outspread.
In English, the remote periphery of the functional-semantic field of
inchoativity is presented by lexical units. For example: to fade, to die.

Comment [A32]: Find a way to combine this in

a larger paragraph.

As for the functional-semantic field of inchoativity in Ukrainian, I should say

that its structure is rather simple. The nuclear reveals the synthetic nature of the
language because the main nuclear representatives are synthetic means of
expression. For example: rozpochaty (to begin) where roz- is a prefix. Analytical
means of expression of inchoativity occupy periphery and are represented by

Comment [A33]: Article needed

copulative, ingressive, and inchoative verbs (their examples are already mentioned
in English).

Comment [A34]: You should give some

Ukrainian examples.

Thise analysis reveals that all language means of expression of inchoativity

strictly belong to different levels in the structure of the functional-semantic field.
The units which occupy the nuclear show the nature of the language and prove the
theory of a language typology (Trier, 1931).

Comment [A35]: This is a strange place to ma

such a big claim; You need to explain more about
how your data supports this.

Conclusion
In general, this analysis that the main difference between English and
Ukrainian functional-semantic fields of inchoativity is defined by the language
typology. In English, analytical units represent the nuclear of the field inchoative
verbs and, phrasal verbs of inchoative semantics. The core in Ukrainian is
occupied by synthetic means afixal and prefixal word-formative means.
Summarizing, I can suggest that language typology influences the way
language units are organized within the structure of a functional-semantic field.
Language means, which occupy the nuclear, mostly reveal the nature of the
Comment [A36]: Should be plural

language, showing the main way of expressing linguistic phenomenon.

The further development of connections between the functional-semantic field
of inchoativity with fields of incgresivity and inceptivity could be the perspective
of this research. It could be also reasonable to broaden the investigation by adding
rRomance languages into the contrastive analysis.

Comment [A37]: Not sure what you mean by

this- are you trying to suggest directions for futur
research? Re-word this so your meaning is clear.

Acknowledgments
I owe a debt of gratitude to my reviewers Halyna Zaporozhez

and

Trista Rappert -McGbetrick for their commentary and suggestions. I would also
like to thank E. A. Gaidarzhiy for her invaluable guidance.

References
1. Bondarko,O. V. (2005). Problemy funkzionalnoy grammatiki: poleviye
struktury

[Problems

St.Petersberg: Nauka.

of

functional

grammar:

field

structures].

Comment [A38]: I know, its a crazy last name

.

2. McNally, M. (2001). Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence

from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Madrid: Madrid Press from
http: // ebookbrowse.com/marin-mcnally-inchoativity-pdfd 124223064/
3. Gak, V. G. (1974). Essays on French functional grammar. Moscow:
Progress.
4. Heyse, K. (1856). System der Sprach Wissenschaft [System of
Linguistics Science]. Berlin: Tetra System.
5. Martinet, M. (1975). Studies in functional syntax: Etudes de syntaxe
fonctionnelle. Munich: Munich Press.
6. Shyur, G. V. (1974). Teoriya polya v linguistike [Field theory in
linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka.
7. Spalatin, L. (1974). Approach to contrastive analysis. Thuringen: Narr.
8. Trnka, B (1967). Neskolko mysley o strukturnoy morfonologiyi
[Thoughts

on

structural

morphonology].

Progress:

Prazhskiy

linguisticheskiy kruzhok, 3 (17), 166-271.

9. Trier, J. (1932). Sprachliche Felder [Language Fields]. Heidelberg:
Zeitung fr deutsche Bildung, 8 (1), 417-427.
10.Trubezkoy, N. S. (1987). Izbranniye trudy po filologiyi [Selective work
of philology]. Moscow: Nauka.