Language representing a flexible and highly organized system is theoretically inexhaustible in its possibilities to be renewed consistently and develop naturally. The majority of scientists consider that language is characterized both by the mechanism of renewal, multiplication and development of its resources and by the mechanism of economy resources of all its subsystems.
These days a distinctive feature of both national and foreign scientists’ reserches is the study and analysis of language economy as a characteristic feature of the modern state of the language in connection with saving time and energy in information exchange in acts of communication. In this regard, O. Strelnikova notes that in “the modern world, with the development of the latest technologies of automation and unification in various spheres of human activity, the tendency to minimize physical and mental efforts is becoming a leading one in the language sphere as well” [4, p. 77]. It suggests that language is subject to change and language behavior can be controlled by the principle of least effort or the principle of economy.
While investigating the issue of the principle of linguistic economy in language Yu. Makarets notes that one of the conditions for the implementation of this principle is “the ability of human thinking to unify and generalize” [2, p. 163]. Thus, the principle of language economy is one of the important factors that is the basis for maintaining the balance of the levels of the language system. In this regard, we believe that the principle of linguistic economy is a universal concept and can be found at all levels of the language system, but specific expressions of this principle are caused by the individual features of each individual language. It should be noted that the tendency towards language economy significantly affects the functioning and development of all levels of the English language including the syntactic level.
Taking into consideration this idea O. Panchenko and K. Shevchyk think that the language can be considered economical either for expressing different relations using the same form or in the case of reducing forms [3].
Linguistic units are connected with each other by means of variant relations that determine the presence of surface and deep levels in the language system. The basis of language is the deep level which is characterized by standard units in their primary forms and functions. These units are paradigmatically connected to each other by relations of similarity-difference. The surface level is a peculiar layer which can be characterized by the complicated use of secondary forms and functions of the corresponding units connected by variant relationships. The fact is that in the surface structure of an utterance there may be often elements that are not given in the deep structure. It is the very inconsistency between the statement and the situation raises the question of semantic economy, provided that no indication of any element of the deep structure can be traced in the surface structure of the statement. The main effective force expressing new concepts within old forms is the principle of language.economy.
The study of hybrid phenomena in the English language leads to the need to define core and peripheral structures, as well as additional meanings that complicate the main one. At the same time studying the term “syncretism” deserves special attention. Many scientists interprete it as a universal means of language, its linguistic universality, a complex and widespread phenomenon of a multifunctional nature. For example, Yu. Baіda believes that one of the main factors leading to the development of syncretism is “the supporting component, namely its categorical meaning” [1, p. 40].
Among linguists there is still no consensus on the term “syncretism” therefore there is no single definition of this term in linguistic dictionaries. The scientists made a lot of attempts to determine its exact, consistent and objective character, since the concept of “syncretism” is one of the most important in linguistics, and this phenomenon turns from a private issue into an actual general linguistic problem.
When analyzing the concept of syncretism linguist L. Shityk draws attention to the fact that syncretism is characterized as a phenomenon of a multifaceted nature which helps to consolidate linguistic facts into one coherent system developing the relationship and interaction between them, and therefore it is inherent in all levels of linguistic structures with their characteristic features [5, p. 133].
According to B. Storme, in the English language syncretism occurs when the expression of grammatical differences in the context occurs due to language variations and resource potential [10].
M. Baerman and D. Brown point out that most researchers have made assumptions about the inadequacy of its description due to its limited nature. They think that morphological description of a particular type of syncretism must contain two elements: (1) a list of the set of meanings that are syncretic, and (2) a way of associating that set with a form. To a large extent, the limitations of syncretism are the result of how these elements are treated [6].
In M. Baerman’s paper syncretism is considered as a phenomenon that occurs when two or more different morphosyntactic meanings are combined into one word form being subject to change [7]. A. Droogers recognizes the fact that the main difficulty of syncretism is using it in both an objective and a subjective meaning [8, p. 195]. Thus, when describing the essence of syncretism some difficulties are reflected in the definition of the term itself. Thus, M. Nunen notes that syncretism occurs in a sentence when a relation marker is used to express several functions [9].
We believe that the different interpretation of the concept of syncretism leads to a diametrically opposed assessment of the corresponding phenomena. Thus, syncretism in the English language is considered as an undeveloped state of certain speech and language facts and from this point of view, its presence is recognized as interfering with the normal functioning of the language, so it should be avoided in the same way as the related phenomena of homonymy, polysemy, doubletness, multifunctionality.
Taking into account the non-discrete character and analyzing the interpretation of syncretism, we come to the conclusion that syncretism is an inseparable fusion, simultaneous coincidence in one linguistic sign (morpheme, word, syntactic construction) of two or more meanings, functions, categories.
To make a conclusion we must say that due to the hybridity of syncretism the manifestation of this process leads to the expansion of the expressive possibilities of the language by saving its own, unrealized but already established means in the language. The analysis of the actual material gives reason to believe that in case of syncretism we are faced with the phenomena that differ in the general non-differentiation of the content plan because they differ in the same object of existing reality. Therefore, syncretism is characteristic of the objects that are characterized both by complex mobility and by systemic relations. It should be noted that at different levels, language units are characterized by a complicated system that combines not only the plan of content, but also the plan of expression. At the same time, the fact is noted that the content is the leading side of the object, while the form represents the side that can be transformed or modified in the conditions of changing the functioning of the content. Thanks to the changing nature of the form and its relative independence an active interaction of form and content can occur. The unity of content and form is a relative process so the content can collide with the form, which is a leading feature when considering and studying syncretic phenomena.
References
1. Байда Ю. М. Явище синкретизму в системі з’ясувальних складнопідрядних речень // Наукові записки. Серія «Філологічна». 2013. Вип. 37. – 340 с. URL:
https://docplayer.net/58642948-Naukovi-zapiski-seriya-filologichna-vipusk-37.html (дата звернення 18.09.2023)
2. Макарець Ю. С. До питання про принцип економії в мові та мовленні // Науковий часопис НПУ імені М. П. Драгоманова. Серія 10 : Проблеми граматики і лексикології української мови. 2013. Вип. 10. С. 161-168. URL: file:///C:/Users/%D0%95%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0/Downloads/Nchnpu_10_2013_10_41%20(1).pdf (дата звернення 18.09.2023)
3. Рись Л. Ф., Бєлих О. М. Контамінація як особливий спосіб словотворення у сучасній німецькій мові // International Scientific and Practical Conference “WORLD SCIENCE”. 2017. № 8 (24). Vol. 2. С. 42-46. URL: https://evnuir.vnu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/13697/3/elibrary_29914610_55277078.pdf (дата звернення 19.09.2023)
4. Стрельнікова О. В. Економія і варіативність як мовні константи (на матеріалі газетного дискурсу англійської мови) // Вісник Житомирського державного університету імені Івана Франка. 2011. С. 77–79. URL: http://eprints.zu.edu.ua/6360/1/vip_58_19.pdf (дата звернення 19.09.2023)
5. Шитик Л. В. Феномен синкретизму в проекції на мовні рівні // Вісник Черкаського університету. 2009. Випуск 169. С. 132-145. URL: http://eprints.cdu.edu.ua/2167/1/169-132-145.pdf (дата звернення 19.09.2023)
6. Baerman Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2005. 281 рр. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/syntaxmorphology-interface/413880A8581E80490ABEF7C7413E8551 (дата звернення 20.09.2023)
7. Baerman Matthew. Syncretism. Language and Linguistics Compass. 2007. 1 (5). Р. 539-551. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227704692_Syncre tism
8. Droogers A. F. Play and Power in Religion: Collected Essays. Berlin: De Gruyter. 2012. 455 p. URL: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/978311 0259513/html (дата звернення 21.09.2023)
9. Noonan Michael. Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. URL: https://d-nb.info/1219146781/34 (дата звернення 21.09.2023)
10. Storme Bejamin. Implicational generalizations in morphological syncretism: The role of communicative biases. Cambridge University Press. 2021. p. 1-41. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics/article/implicational-generalizations-in-morphological-syncretism-the-role-of-communicative-biases/AD3D31C75F3D6210076E11D7A48194EE (дата звернення 22.09.2023)
Голосування 
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter