An Introduction to Linguistic Synergetics [1 ed.] 9781527509511, 9781527505704

Citation preview

An Introduction to Linguistic Synergetics

An Introduction to Linguistic Synergetics By

Tetiana Dombrovan

An Introduction to Linguistic Synergetics By Tetiana Dombrovan This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Tetiana Dombrovan All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0570-7 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0570-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE .............................................................................................. 1 SYNERGETICS: THE STUDY OF COMPLEXITY Synergetics within a Historical Retrospective ....................................... 1 On the Status and Tasks of Synergetics ................................................. 4 The Peculiarity of Synergetics ............................................................... 8 Key Concepts of Synergetics ............................................................... 10 On an Interdisciplinary Character of Synergetics ................................ 20 Applications of Synergetics ................................................................. 23 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................... 27 WHAT IS LINGUISTIC SYNERGETICS? Linguistic Synergetics: A Definition .................................................. 27 Linguistic Synergetics: Applications ................................................... 29 Linguistic Synergetics: Aims and Tasks .............................................. 32 Language as a Synergetic System ........................................................ 33 Fractality as a Fundamental Feature of the Language System ............. 37 Language as a Scale-Free Network ...................................................... 43 CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................ 49 DIACHRONIC SYNERGETICS: A FEW NOTES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE The History of the English Language: A Problem of Appropriate Division into Periods ...................................................................... 49 Historical changes within vowels ........................................................ 54 Historical changes within consonants .................................................. 65 Foreign Influence on the Phonetic System of English ......................... 68 Diachronic Linguosynergetics: Focus on the Structure of Words........ 71 Diachronic Linguosynergetics: Focus on the Case System of the Noun ..................................................................................... 86

vi

Table of Contents

CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................... 97 A SYNERGETIC MODEL OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Language Development as a Synchronisation of Tempo-Worlds in the Grammatical System ............................................................ 97 Language Development as a Change of the Parameter Pattern of the Language System ............................................................... 102 Language Development as a Change of the States of the Language Mega-System................................................................................ 114 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 125 INDEX ....................................................................................................... 139

PREFACE

Why does language change over time? What are the triggers and mechanisms of changes on different language levels, such as the phonemic level, the morphemic level, the lexical level, and the syntactic level? Why is lexis subject to rapid changes and innovations while syntactic constructions tend to retain a certain stability over centuries? How did it come about that within a few centuries the English language has changed its grammatical system from synthetic to analytical? These and some other questions inspired by my interest in the theory of language development have motivated me to look for a new approach to the subject under consideration. This book is an attempt to study language development within a synergetic perspective. Synergetics is defined as a theory of self-organising complex systems of various ontologies. It calls for a macroscopic approach (H. Haken), dealing with complex systems from a unifying point of view. Synergetics has suggested a new approach to the object of analysis, new methods of investigation, and a new wider repertoire of concepts and categories aimed at helping the researcher reveal new aspects of the phenomena investigated. The new approach and methods, which were primarily developed in physics, chemistry, and biology, have also proved valid in philology due to the fact that human language has the same features as any synergetic system. Their application to the study of language has given birth to a new trend in linguistics that was given the name of linguistic synergetics, or linguosynergetics. The first chapter of this book, “Synergetics: The Study of Complexity”, contains a brief survey of the historical background of synergetics, and discusses its status and main tasks. It also provides an introduction to some basic concepts of synergetics and reveals its interdisciplinary character. The second chapter seeks an answer to the question, “What is Linguistic Synergetics?”. It considers the methodological and conceptual basis of linguistic synergetics, its topical space, aims and tasks. This chapter also provides an overview of language as a synergetic megasystem and defines its fundamental features from the synergetic perspective. The third chapter, “Diachronic Synergetics: A Few Notes on the Development of the English Language”, offers a novel conceptual perspective on the history of English. It starts with the discussion of the

viii

Preface

problem of appropriate periodisation of the history of the English language. It then focuses on phonetic changes, as well as historical changes within the structure of words, looked at from a synergetic angle. The fourth chapter, “A Synergetic Model of Language Development”, represents the evolution of the English language as a synergetic process involving a synchronisation of tempo-worlds in the grammatical system, changes of the parameter pattern of the language system and, finally, a typological shift as a change of the states of the language mega-system. Excerpts from essays written in Russian or Ukrainian are presented in this book in free translation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation and warm thanks to Prof. Irina Kolegayeva (Odessa), Prof. Isabella Buniyatova (Kiev), Prof. Lidia Pihtovnikova (Kharkov), Prof. Andrew Levitsky (Moscow) and all my colleagues in the English Department at Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University (Ukraine) for being supportive. I feel extremely lucky to publish this book with Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Victoria Carruthers, Theo Moxham, Helen Cryer, Christine von Gall, Adam Rummens and Amanda Millar have been the greatest pleasure to work with and have been helpful with every detail in the preparation of this book’s physical manuscript. I would like to thank them for their advice, their courtesy, and their patience with me throughout the whole process. Special thanks go to John Ingamells for his incisive comments when editing this manuscript. I also owe a great debt to my precious family for their unending patience and encouragement. I reserve my deepest gratitude for my Dad, to whom this book is dedicated.

CHAPTER ONE SYNERGETICS: THE STUDY OF COMPLEXITY

Synergetics within a Historical Retrospective The early years of the 20th century witnessed a revival of the concept of ‘system’ known since ancient times. Thanks to a great number of scientific discoveries, the rise of new scientific disciplines (such as genetics in biology, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics in physics and others), as well as rapid development of new technologies, significant changes were brought to our understanding of the system and its ubiquity. The outer world began to be seen as a dynamic conglomeration of systems – biological, chemical, physical, social, etc. Researchers were eager to construct a comprehensive scientific view of the world based on laws common to both organic and inorganic nature, or, put differently, to create a new complex systems paradigm. New scientific theories were suggested (such as General Systems Theory, Quantum Theory, Irreversible Thermodynamics Theory, Instability Theory, Dynamic Chaos Theory, Catastrophe Theory, Phase-Transition Theory, the Theory of Bifurcations, the Theory of Autowave Processes, the Theory of Oscillation, to mention just a few) within which new concepts and methods of investigation were developed, which later provided a foundation for synergetics as a unified approach to various complex systems study. Cybernetics is also considered a precursor of synergetics. In the words of Norbert Wiener (1894 –1964), the founder of this interdisciplinary science, cybernetics is a theory of ‘control and communication in the animal and the machine’. The word is of Greek origin meaning ‘governance’, or ‘government’. Cybernetics focused on negativefeedback-based complex systems of causal-chain circularity, i.e. automatic systems capable of restoring their stability within a desired range regardless of any disturbances. It is within cybernetics that the notion of ‘homeostasis’, meaning invariability and balance of states, as well as internal steady-state, came to be applied not only to living beings, but also

2

Chapter One

to technological systems. This notion is seen as one of the most important aspects of a system, necessary for maintaining its stability and functioning.

Hermann Haken

Unlike cybernetics which studies relatively balanced, stable and homeostatic systems, synergetics focuses its attention on hysteretic, i.e. evolving, positive-feedback-based complex systems. The notion of ‘hysteresis’ (from Greek ‘lagging behind’) means a delay in the production of an effect by a cause [134: 478]. In other words, it is a ‘history dependence’ of a system. To predict such a system’s behaviour, it is necessary to know the ‘history’ of all external influences upon the given system. The term ‘synergetics’ (from Greek ‘coherent action’) was coined by the German physicist Hermann Haken in the mid-1970s to name a science of complexity, dealing with principles of emergence, self- organisation and self-regulation of complex systems of various ontologies – either manmade (artificial) or natural (self-organised). What, then, is understood by ‘complex systems’? A naïve assumption is based on a description of a complex system as having numerous components connected to one another. However, this interpretation is insufficient for research purposes: “A modern definition is based on the concept of algebraic complexity” [85: 4], i.e. it includes a

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

3

sequence of data describing both the interconnected network and cooperativity of the system’s elements and their complex behaviour. Robert C. Bishop considers it more informative to characterise complex systems phenomenologically and lists the following most important features in these characterisations: x

• •

• • • • • • • •

Many-body systems. Some systems exhibit complex behaviour with as few as three constituents, while others require large numbers of constituents. Broken symmetry. Various kinds of symmetries, such as homogeneous arrangements in space, may exist before some parameter reaches a critical value, but not beyond. Hierarchy. There are levels or nested structures that may be distinguished, often requiring different descriptions at the different levels (e.g., large-scale motions in fluids vs. small-scale fluctuations). Irreversibility. Distinguishable hierarchies are usually indicators of, or result from, irreversible processes (e.g., diffusion, effusion). Relations. System constituents are coupled to each other via some kinds of relation, so are not mere aggregates like piles of sand. Situatedness. The dynamics of the constituents usually depend upon the structures in which they are embedded as well as the environment and history of the system as a whole. Integrity. Systems display an organic unity of function which is absent if one of the constituents or internal structures is absent or if relations among the structures and constituents are broken. Integration. Various forms of structural/functional relations, such as feedback loops couple the components contributing crucially to maintaining system integrity. Intricate behaviour. System behaviour lies somewhere between simple order and total disorder such that it is difficult to describe and does not merely exhibit randomly produced structures. Stability. The organisation and relational unity of the system is preserved under small perturbations and adaptive under moderate changes in its environment. Observer relativity. The complexity of systems depends on how we observe and describe them. Measures of, and judgements about, complexity are not independent of the observer and the choice of measurement apparatus [63: 111–112].

4

Chapter One

A complex system manifests its phenomenal richness and, consequently, demands new ways of scientific analysis, as well as a new framework of categories. Synergetics suggests integrity of methods elaborated in various disciplines and a variety of models to represent the complexity of organic and inorganic systems. Successful application of the concepts and methods of the synergetic approach to the description of biological, physical, historic, social, and even economic phenomena has revealed similarity, if not universality, of principles of evolution of complex systems. As a result, synergetics has made it possible to launch a wide variety of interdisciplinary interrelationships, among them mathematical physics, mathematical history, social government, neurosynergetics, meteorology, geodynamics, prognostics, to name a few. The new disciplines, in their turn, require specialists with a profound knowledge of complex systems methodology. Otherwise, as Cliff Hooker points out, people whose education does not include relevant competency in complex systems are excluded from science, policy, and large-scale business, or they find themselves increasingly dependent on those who have such competency [89: 6]. Nowadays, the necessity of integration of different sciences calls for no argument and most scholars agree that the future of science lies within interdisciplinary research of complex systems [see, e.g. 30:8; 48:235; 88; 89]. In the words of George Malinetsky, the 21st century is bound to become a century of a re-establishment of holism and a deep understanding of common problems [39: 42]. It is interdisciplinary orientation that helps scientists think globally, i.e. beyond the borders of particular disciplines.

On the Status and Tasks of Synergetics The review of available special theoretical literature on synergetics – articles, essays, and manuscripts – has revealed an absence of unanimity among scientists as to the status of synergetics. Some authors speak of synergetics as a new style of scientific thinking, identified with non-linear thinking that, in a theoretical plane, plays the role of a certain meta-science, studying the common principles as if dissolved in particular disciplines [34]. For others, synergetics is a theory of evolution and self-organisation of complex systems of the world that lays a common basis for a description of mechanisms of emergence of various innovations [17; 32; 33]. Still others consider synergetics to be a scientific mainstream aiming at uniting natural sciences and humanities on the basis of a common method of generalisation [48]. There are many who regard synergetics as a new scientific paradigm [3; 5; 28–31]. Synergetics is

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

5

also seen as “an interdisciplinary approach founded on intersection of the subject knowledge, mathematical modelling and philosophical reflection” [36:17], or even as an interdisciplinary methodology for explaining the emergence of definite macroscopic phenomena due to non-linear interrelationships among microscopic elements in complex systems [35: 26]. A wide diversity of understanding the status of synergetics is demonstrated in Fig. 1. Moreover, some scholars define synergetics differently in their different articles or even within the same article. Such a situation can be explained by the multi-dimensional character of synergetics. Thus, Helena Knyazeva in [32: 70–71] speaks of the following dimensions of synergetics: x

x

x

x x

x

A scientific dimension. Synergetics is defined as a peculiar mainstream of scientific investigations focusing on the study of complexity, non-linearity, and chaos, on outlining and mathematical modelling of the so-called blow-up stages described by the hyperbolic law. A philosophical dimension. Here the focus is shifted to explanatory possibilities and an interdisciplinary character of synergetics. The author warns against reducing synergetics to particular disciplines, such as physics or chemistry within which it emerged. On the contrary, synergetics studies universal principles of selforganisation, as well as the emergence and co-evolution of complex systems. A methodological dimension. This consists of drastic changes taking place in the conceptual network of man: “There appears a new synergetic view of the world – evolutionary, non-linear and holistic. The old paradigm is being broken by a conceptual shift from ‘being’ to ‘becoming’, from stability and equilibrium to instability and non-linear phase transitions, from order to chaos serving as a basis for innovative changes in complex systems.” An epistemic dimension of synergetics is seen in the application of models in the study of cognitive and creative processes. A social dimension of synergetics is perceived in the application of synergetic models in social studies, including prognoses of social processes development. Such models are believed to serve as the foundation for further scientific research of the so-called non-linear methods of social government. A prognostic dimension of synergetics. It is claimed that synergetics can become a novel methodology in the study of the future (prognostication).

A new scientific trend

A science

A new scientific paradigm

A metascience A metascientific mainstream m

Chhapter One

Stattus of Syneergetics

A theory

A discourse off postmodern scieence

A new n ideo ology

Methodolo ogy, methodologgical basis

World view

A new interdisciplinary mainstreaam

An interrdisciplinary parradigm

A new style of scientific thinking

S Fig. 1.1 Undeerstanding the Status of Synergetics

6

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

7

I think that synergetics has one more dimension, let’s call it humanitarian. It concerns the application of the synergetic methodology to the study of human language as a complex system. This dimension is close to the epistemic one, but unlike the latter dealing with man’s cognitive activity, the former focuses on complex systems as a result of such activity and studies further the behaviour and development of constructed complex systems. All of the above proves that synergetics as a unified theory of complex systems is multi-dimensional, which, on the one hand, makes it hard to strictly define its status, but, on the other, outlines the main tasks of this theory. They are connected with: x the study of a wide variety of states of an open, dynamic, nonlinear self-governed system in order to obtain the whole spectrum of possible structures of a given complex system in a non-linear environment; x the study and modelling of self-organisation processes (phase shifts) of a synergetic system. This presupposes analysis of existing attractors of the system; x singling out and description of the system’s ‘life’ stages within a non-linear environment – emergence, functioning, and decay; x reanalysis of the concepts of ‘chaos’, ‘order’, and ‘chance’ in the light of the synergetic methodology. This will enable a scientist to predict possible alternatives in the development of a complex system; x description of a synergetic system as a unity of co-evolving complex subsystems of various ‘ages’ [see works by H. Knyazeva and S. Kurdyumov]. A synergetic system is heterogeneous not only because it consists of various subsystems and elements of different types: it may include (and it usually does!) components at various stages of development. A widely-known example is the human body: on the one hand, it contains a coccyx, a rudimentary tail which is of little use in the life of a body; and on the other hand, the cerebral cortex which has no analogy in the organic world. Scientists strongly believe that the application of principles of coevolution of complex systems, as well as principles of non-linear development of open dissipative environments, will result in the formation of a new efficient approach to the solutions to global problems facing mankind and contemporary science [3].

8

Chapter One

Needless to say, the common feature of all synergetic systems is their uniqueness: the Universe, our life on planet Earth, the languages and cultures of the peoples of the world, ecosystems, and so on are unprecedented and one-off. Consequently, man’s responsibility for his actions (most of which are irreversible) increases. I cannot but agree with George Malinetsky who says: “We must think, foresee and plan our actions in this only world where we live and in this only life at our disposal. It is a challenge to many sciences” [37: 21]. All things considered, synergetics helps us understand the principles of complex systems, predetermining our present day and our tomorrow.

The Peculiarity of Synergetics Synergetics is regarded as a new stage in the development of the theory of systems with special emphasis on issues of evolution and phase shifts. The methodological peculiarity of synergetics consists in the study of the development processes as a multi-stage self-regulation of a certain structural unity. Synergetics has changed our world outlook by representing reality as open, ever-changing, non-linear, and infinite in the choice of alternatives of further development. In the words of the Nobel Laureate in chemistry (1977) Ilya Prigogine, synergetics has changed our perception of matter and its role in the Universe: ‘The matter is no longer a passive physical substance, as it was described within the mechanical paradigm. It is also characterised by a spontaneous activity. The new view of the world differs drastically from the traditional one; we may as well speak of a new dialogue of man and nature’ [43: 37, 50]. Synergetics has made it possible to look at chaos differently. Coming from mythology, chaos is traditionally associated with instability, disorder, destruction, and mess. In other words, the very concept of ‘chaos’ has always been used with a decidedly negative connotation. By contrast, the notion of ‘order’ has always been perceived of being a complete antonym of ‘chaos’, something that is good, stable, and purposefully desirable. In the synergetic paradigm the notion of ‘chaos’ acquires some additional shade of meaning. Chaos is not just destructive, it is constructive as well! Chaos is seen as a mechanism of self-organisation, a mechanism of switching the system’s states, or regimes of existence, a mechanism of transition to a new equilibrium. It is a way of renewing the complexity in nature.

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

9

Ilya Prigogine

Lately, the concept of ‘chaos’ has attracted special attention from researchers studying its peculiarities, its various degrees and limiting features in different environments. The theory of dynamic chaos aims at disclosing mechanisms of emergence of new levels of structural organisation, when random fluctuations in unbalanced states lead to the formation of attractors in a non-linear environment and to the subsequent emergence of new order parameters. As Vyachslav Stepin notes, the traditional philosophic concept of ‘a dialectical leap’, meaning a transition to a new quality in the development of a certain system, used to be ignored in the previous scientific paradigm, but only in synergetics has it come into focus [46]. Synergetics also sheds new light on one of the fundamental issues of philosophy, namely the problem of the correlation of the part and the whole. This problem seems to be connected with the issue of the coevolution of integral parts of a given system. It is well known that the whole is not a mere sum of its components. Water, ice and vapour are three forms of existence of one and the same substance. Other examples – diamond and graphite – have the same components but different physical and chemical characteristics. The ‘mystery’ can easily be explained by the specific network of relationships among the system components.

10

Chapter One

It was within the synergetic paradigm that scientists paid attention to another phenomenon: an open dynamic complex system consists, as a rule, of parts that are at different stages of their development. This is true with a language system, too. Take, for example, a word-stock of any living language, and you will find new words and expressions alongside obsolete ones. Synergetics is seen as a specific theoretical and methodological platform, systematising numerous fragments of knowledge about the external world obtained by science and integrating them into a comprehensive image of the world. A synergetic view of the world represents the latter as capable of self-organising from parts into unity. This calls to mind a hologram, in which the whole can be restored from any of its fragment. The holographic model of the world is supported by a philosophical understanding of the wholeness of the physical matter and may be regarded as a next stage in the never-ending evolution of the Universe. The Universe constitutes a total dynamic superstructure of limitless variety of criss-crossed powerful mega-systems developing in a non-linear way and changing according to their own inner laws and purposes. Nowadays, the methodology of science undergoes significant changes, concerning, first of all, the paradigm shift – from ‘destructive analysis’ to ‘constructive synthesis’. A unified theory of complex systems is being born.

Key Concepts of Synergetics A new approach to the study of complex open dynamic systems facilitates the introduction of new terminology, as well as a reconsideration of ‘old’ concepts and notions. The necessity for strict definition of terms widely employed (often metaphorically) in contemporary scientific literature is beyond argument. The use of different terms to designate the same phenomenon is not rare, especially in articles by scientists working in geographically dispersed countries (that is why the significance of personal participation in international conferences and accessibility to the proceedings of such forums cannot be underestimated). Below are listed the key concepts of synergetics. However, this is not an exhaustive list but it includes only the notions also employed in linguistic synergetics (see Chapter 2), namely: a closed/open system, linearity/non-linearity, self-organisation, dissipation, order (control)

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

11

parameters, fluctuations and bifurcations, stability (equilibrium)/instability, an attractor, a fractal, and coherence. Let us consider them in brief, in order of appearance.

A closed/open system A system is usually defined as a set of hierarchically organised components (elements, parts, subsystems, etc.), having spatial and temporal boundaries and existing in a certain environment. If a system interacts with its environment by exchanging information, energy, and matter with the latter, then such a system is called open. An open system is only able to function with energy from its environment. By contrast, a closed (or isolated) system does not exchange energy or matter with its environment. Most natural systems are open. So are social systems. In what follows, we are going to discuss open systems and their properties.

Linearity/non-linearity In the paradigm of stability and equilibrium, linearity was an idealistic image of simplicity and cause-consequence determination displayed in the system’s proportional reaction to the external disturbance. It deals with the homeostasis of a system and agrees with the superposition principle. The word ‘linear’ comes from Latin linearis meaning resembling a line, as a straight line is a graphical representation of mathematical solution of the relevant differential equations. Designed, i.e. human-made, systems, for instance, telecommunications and signal processing, hydrodynamic models, electricity and optics models, are all linear and can be represented by linear equations. However, most systems of the world are non-linear, chaotic and hardly predictable. In other words, their behaviour is not determined by certain initial conditions, nor can it be defined by the familiar principle “If X.., then Y...”. The behaviour of such systems can be described algebraically by specific equations with a few or many unknowns. The graphical representation of the mathematical solutions of such differential equations is a curve. The synergetic paradigm focuses on non-linearity as a more important notion out of the two in the ‘linear’/’non-linear’ opposition. Non-linearity is recognised to be primary as compared with linearity. It helps us see the world as much more complex from the view of systems’ behavioural

12

Chapter One

patterns. It also allows the definition of a hierarchy of complexity levels, and envisages investigations into asymmetry, regularity and irregularity. The term ‘non-linearity’ came into the conceptual network of synergetics from mathematics, where it is defined as a particular type of equation with numerous variables and unknowns, which widen the spectrum of possible solutions depending upon the variables and/or coefficients. The synergetic paradigm outlines a philosophical aspect of nonlinearity which is revealed in the set of alternatives of evolution routes and change rates depending upon the environment characteristics, as well as the irreversibility of evolution [30:50]. As is seen, the notion of nonlinearity has widened its meaning from the narrow, specialised term to a philosophical concept. Nowadays, non-linearity is a conceptual nucleus of the synergetic paradigm which is also referred to as a paradigm of nonlinearity [ibidem, p.48].

Self-organisation A non-linear environment is considered a necessary condition for selforganisation of a synergetic system. Sequences of acts of self-organisation in a complex system constitute a ‘history of life’ of the given system, its evolution. In synergetics, self-organisation is both a process and a result of coherent interaction of numerous components and parts of a system aimed at regulating the inner structure of the system. Self-organisation is characterised by spatial, temporal, spatial-temporal and/or functional shifts and rearrangement of the given system. Correspondingly, systems which can acquire macroscopic spatial, temporal, or spatio-temporal structures by means of internal processes without specific interference from the outside, are called self-organising systems [85: 69]. Self-organising systems are found both in organic and inorganic matter. The phenomenon of self-organisation of complex systems has been successfully studied in physics, chemistry and biology. While researching complex self-organising systems, a Belgian physical chemist, Ilya Prigogine, defined dissipative structures and formulated Dissipative Structure Theory; a German physicist, Hermann Haken, introduced the notions of ‘order parameters’ and ‘slaving principle’. The term ‘dissipation’ is used to designate irreversible processes of internal energy degradation and/or transformation in thermodynamic open systems. A dissipative system exchanges energy and matter with its environment. Examples of dissipative systems are diffusion, friction, emanation, cyclones, hurricanes, turbulent flows, lasers, and so on. Ilya

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

13

Prigogine also coined the term ‘dissipative structure’ to denote a dissipative system having dynamic regimes and characterised by anisotropy. Scientists working in the synergetic paradigm distinguish between microscopic and macroscopic levels of description of a system. The microscopic level includes investigating into elementary components and their behaviour within the given system, while the macroscopic level is a description of the whole system’s dynamics as a result of its external interactions with the outer world. Needless to say, macroscopic changes in a complex system, whereby new structures or new functions occur, are the focus of special attention: “This restriction to qualitative, macroscopic changes is the price to be paid in order to find general principles” [85: 13]. H. Haken suggests describing the macroscopic pattern of a system with the help of certain macroscopic variables called the order parameters. The latter govern the behaviour of the microscopic elements and parts by the ‘slaving principle’: “In this way the occurrence of order parameters and their ability to enslave allows the system to find its own structure” [ibidem]. Order parameters are not abstract mathematical notions; they are physical characteristics of a certain complex system. Changes within the parameter pattern may signal a structural change of the complex system, and vice versa. Order parameters are considered the key to the explanation of the system’s behaviour, for they allow reducing complexity of the system under study, which makes it easier to understand the ways of a complex system: “The use of order parameters at the macrostate level means an essential reduction of modelling complexity at the microscopic level which could not be analysed in all details” [32: 80; 35].

Fluctuations and Bifurcations A fluctuation is understood as a temporary stochastic change of a characteristic of a system or continual switching from one point to another, which may cause a certain variety in the system’s dynamics, including even the loss of stability. Fluctuations can bring the system to a critical point called ‘bifurcation’, i.e. a peculiar branching or junction of the system’s possible regimes of existence. The term ‘bifurcation’ was introduced by the French mathematician and philosopher of science Henri Poincare in 1885. Bifurcations are of two main groups – local and global, leading the system to local or global changes, correspondingly. “There are many

14

Chapter One

dynamically different ways in which this can occur, broadly classified as either local – where the form changes continuously as some dynamical parameter or parameters continuously vary – or global changes that involve more complex shifts. Among the latter are phase transitions (e.g. gas to liquid, liquid to solid, or reverse), including critical point transitions (e.g. simultaneous transitions among gas, liquid and solid states), where changes can be discontinuous and incomputable, essentially because fluctuations on every scale up to that of the whole system are simultaneously possible” [89: 26–27]. Bifurcations are called ‘soft’ if they lead the system to a new state smoothly and steadily; and ‘catastrophic’ if the transition occurs suddenly. In any event, bifurcations characterise the instability of the system’s state.

Stability/Instability Instability is a peculiar state of an evolving complex system in which it reveals sensitivity to external disturbances. By contrast, stability is a state of equilibrium of a system. Scientists distinguish between static and dynamic equilibria: “Static equilibria require no energy input or output to persist, e.g. a crystal at rest. Dynamical equilibria typically require an irreversible ordered energy (negentropy) flow to sustain them, e.g. water flow to sustain the wave structure of river rapids, together with appropriate waste (degraded or entropic) outputs, e.g. turbulent water. For living systems there is water, food and hydrogen or oxygen input flow to sustain them and heat and chemicals as waste outputs” [88: 23]. If a system is instable, then the slightest fluctuations may lead through irreversible bifurcations to drastic changes in the structural organisation of the system and, thus, to increasing complexity of the system’s dynamics on the whole [35: 131]. However, the same fluctuation may be ignored by the system if the latter is at equilibrium. Instability is one of the principal concepts in synergetics. Moreover, according to Dmitry Chernavsky, it should be considered the most important one: “They say synergetics is a science of non-linear processes, it is correct, but it is not foremost. They say synergetics is a science of farfrom-thermodynamic-equilibrium systems, and it’s true, but it’s not foremost, either. They say synergetics is a science of self-organisation of evolving systems, and it is so. However, since instable processes underlie self-organisation, we may say that synergetics is a science of instable processes. That is true. Moreover, that is foremost” [48: 271].

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

15

Attractor An attractor is another concept that came to synergetics from natural sciences and is widely used in the description of evolving open systems. It denotes a state or a behaviour pattern towards which a dynamic system tends to evolve, regardless of the starting conditions of the system and is represented as a point or orbit in the system’s phase space [132]. James A. Coffman suggests the following interpretation of this notion: “The total set of positive (activating) and negative (inhibitory) interactions within a system can be described as a ‘regulatory network’ that constrains the development of information in a logical (and hence predictable) manner. An important property of such networks is that they are often the source of self-organising ‘attractors’. An attractor, which is a stable state towards which a developmental trajectory is inexorably drawn (e.g., the phenotype of an organism), is established by the regulatory network architecture, that is, by the set of logical rules (positive and negative interactions) that regulate the development of information within a selforganising system. In essence, an attractor is a final cause accessed by the regulatory network, which is in turn a formal cause established by organisation that developed via the selective agency of autocatalytic cycles” [72: 300]. It is assumed that an open non-linear environment conceals in itself a set of certain structural types (attractors). Once a system has chosen one of the possible trajectories of evolution, the other routes, so to speak, are closing down. Since the environment itself is subject to changes, then the whole set of potential ways of development can change as well. That is why certain attractors may never come to life [see 32: 110]. The theory of dynamic systems distinguishes the following three types of attractors: 1) point; 2) periodic, and 3) strange, or chaotic (see Fig. 1.2 below). A point attractor is a single-state attractor. A periodic attractor includes a set of states with definite orbits. A strange attractor is characterised by a chaotic, never-repeated behaviour.

16

Chapterr One

Fig.1.2 Typess of attractors

F Fractals and d fractality The term ‘fractal’ waas introduced d by the Frrench and American A mathematiciian Benoit Mandelbrot M (1924–2010) inn 1975 to describe a pattern of sself-similarityy at every leevel and/or sscale of the structural organisationn of a compleex system. Th he word is off Latin origin meaning ‘broken’. The conccept of self-sim milarity is usu ually illustrateed using the an nalogy of zooming in with a lens on digital im mages to unccover finer, previously p

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

17

invisible, new structures. Within fractals, zooming in reveals the same pattern, not a new structure: a segment of a fractal-scaled structure is a replica of the whole structure. In other words, one and the same pattern is repeated at various levels of the structural organisation.

Benoit Mandelbrot

Scholars agree that fractals are difficult to define in an exact way, although self-similarity is recognised as the basic feature of fractals. However, self-similarity is not a homogeneous phenomenon. Kenneth Falconer (2003) points at the following types of self-similarity: x Exact self-similarity that is identical at all scales; e.g. geometrical fractals, such as Koch snowflake; x Quasi self-similarity that approximates the same pattern at different scales or may contain small copies of the entire fractal in distorted and degenerate forms; e.g. the Mandelbrot set's satellites are approximations of the entire set, but not exact copies. x Statistical self-similarity that repeats a pattern stochastically across scales; e.g. randomly generated fractals, or natural fractals, such as the coastline of Britain.

18

Chapter One

x Qualitative self-similarity is revealed in a time series. x Multifractal scaling that is characterised by more than one fractal dimension or scaling rule. There are several types of fractals, among them being mathematical (geometrical) and natural. Mathematical, or geometrical, fractals are abstract, computer-generated and practically infinite. B. Mandelbrot (1983) described geometric fractals as being ‘a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole’.

Fig.1.3 Geometrical fractals

In nature fractal patterns can be found as well – clouds, corals, trees, mountain chains, river basins, a blood system and lungs in living organisms, etc., are all fractal-scaled.

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

19

Fig.1.4 Natural fractals

Why are fractals so numerous in the natural world? To find an answer to the question, scientists focussed their attention on a most important peculiarity of fractals, namely their ability to considerably compress the volume of the object having a self-similar structure. In other words, a fractal-patterned object takes up a smaller space but at the same time its length tends to infinity (for example, a coastline can be measured with the help of fractal geometry).

20

Chapter One

One of the ways to cognise various phenomena of the natural world is the so-called ‘fractal analogy’ with the help of which synergetics explains the fact that certain structures are repeated at different stages of the system’s evolution.

Coherence This term came to synergetics from physics where it is used to denote the ideal property of waves that enables temporally and spatially constant interference. As a concept of synergetics, coherence (from Latin ‘to hold together as a unit, to connect’) has widened its meaning: it denotes consistent and orderly agreement of behavioural patterns of the system components during self-organisation. Coherent dynamics of the elements and parts of a complex system are a basis for the emergence of complex spatial-temporal structures out of chaos [see: 32: 237–238]. Coherence is a property of a system (not of an element) and one of the conditions of the system’s functioning and development.

On an Interdisciplinary Character of Synergetics A disciplinary approach to the study of an object implies the usage of notions and categories, as well as a methodology of analysis, elaborated within a particular discipline. An interdisciplinary approach is realised in at least two directions. Firstly, it presupposes expansion of the set of categories and methods of analysis at the expense of those from other disciplines. Let us call it a centrifugal vector of interdisciplinarity (see Fig.1.5). Secondly, an interdisciplinary approach is a cooperative study of an object when it is placed into the sphere of scientific reflection of researchers working in different fields of science and/or belonging to different academic schools of thought. It is a synthesis of methods and concepts of two or more disciplines. Let’s call it a centripetal vector of interdisciplinarity (see Fig.1.6). The interdisciplinary methodology is a horizontal, associative network of links, integrating experience, modes of thinking and methods of particular scientific fields. The disciplinary methodology is vertically structured, digging into the depths of the object of investigation, and more or less limited by the boundaries of its own discipline.

Synerrgetics: The Stu udy of Complexxity

21

scien ntific discipline 3

scienttific disciplline 2

scie entific disc cipline 4

scien ntific discipline-1

scien ntific discipline n+1 Fig. 1.5 Interddisciplinary invvestigations: a centrifugal c vecto tor

scientific discipline-2 2

scientific discipline n+ +1

scientificc discipline e1

obje ect of investigation

Fig. 1.6 Interddisciplinary invvestigations: a centripetal c vectoor

22

Chapter One

From a historical point of view, the interdisciplinarity is not novel, and I cannot but agree with Andrew Barry that it would be incorrect to think that, in the past, knowledge production has primarily taken place within autonomous unified disciplines but that it no longer does so [61: 23]. Similarly, it would be a mistake to contrast the homogeneity and closure of disciplines with the heterogeneity and openness of interdisciplinarity, for disciplines themselves are often remarkably heterogeneous or internally divided [ibidem, p. 26]. Some scholars prefer a disciplinary approach to the interdisciplinary one. Thus, Vladimir Arshinov notes that “a disciplinary approach is supposed to solve a definite task, appearing in a historical context of the object development, with the help of the already established methods. Exact opposite is an interdisciplinary approach it is a principally different, holistic way of categorisation of the reality, where polymorphism of languages and analogy are dominant, not a cause” [2: 75] (my italics). In my opinion, the concepts of ‘disciplinarity’ and ‘interdisciplinarity’ are not “exact opposite”, but complementary. An interdisciplinary approach reinforces an explanatory potency of research, enriching a certain scientific discipline with new concepts and modes of thinking, and takes a researcher across the boundaries to a meta-level of analysis. Interdisciplinarity is considered a step to synthesis of knowledge obtained in various spheres of human activity, a specific reaction to hyperspecialisation as a process leading to a dramatic increase in fragmentation of knowledge when researchers working in adjacent fields are ignorant of their colleagues’ achievements, and that is why many discoveries are ‘rediscovered’ in neighbouring spheres [32: 73; 38: 27]. It is worth noting that contemporary science is at such a stage of development when, in fact, there can hardly be found a phenomenon that would be an object of research within only one, autonomous discipline. Both man, nature, society, and even language are no more monodisciplinary objects of analysis. Moreover, interdisciplinary projects seem much more fruitful due to the possibility to widen a researcher’s world outlook, to improve his/her investigational skills, to form a holistic view of the reality. Synergetics is a rather young interdisciplinary mainstream, still at a tender age. It integrates a variety of sciences dealing with open, dynamic, self-organising complex systems, developing non-linearly in different environments. Interdisciplinarity of synergetics is in the synthesis of methods and research techniques elaborated and implemented in natural sciences. It is a holistic perception of the world in which everything is interconnected and it never stops changing.

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

23

Applications of Synergetics The methodology and conceptual network of synergetics can be employed in various spheres of scientific activity studying complex evolving systems. In the words of Helena Knyazeva, any theory which is used to obtain new knowledge becomes a method, or, as it were, our companion (from Greek ȝİIJĮ ‘complicity, cooperation’ + ȠįȠȢ ‘way, road’) on the thorny paths of scientific study [32: 83]. Scholars agree that synergetic principles set up a heuristic scheme for complex systems modelling both in sciences and in humanities to solve technological, ecological, social, political and other problems. The first results have already been obtained of the successful application of synergetics in: x Technology: creation of new materials. x Mathematical history: mathematical modelling of historic events in order to develop algorithms and methods of description of historical alternatives, as well as to state possible ways of further development of various situations. x Mathematical sociology and social management: studying and modelling social phenomena, such as residential dynamics, emergence of self-organising cities, social instability, or collective opinion formation [100; 101]. x Psychology: A net model of the fractal world makes for mathematical modelling in psychology. Researchers have described non-linearity and cyclical patterns of thinking processes, as well as the net-like structure of the human brain. Psychologists see a synergetic character of the evolution of the individual and collective conscience and consider the theory of attractors and the catastrophe theory valid for description of psychic processes. [21; 78; 79; 82; 84]. x Brain studies: The application of synergetics to the analysis of the neuron network of the cerebral cortex gave birth to a new interdisciplinary approach, namely neurosynergetics. Recent research in neurophysiology and neurosynergetics has uncovered self-organisation of the neuron network. It has been proved that the human brain presents a non-linear complex system whose dynamics are predetermined by a variety of attractors responsible for perception, learning, thinking and other functions of the brain. [22; 28; 29; 31: 44–45; 79; 84].

24

Chapter One

x Medical diagnostics: The application of recent achievements of the dynamic systems theory and non-linear dynamics for the mathematical modelling of functioning and diagnostics of health conditions of animate systems is regarded as a novel and promising approach of interdisciplinary studies, involving and uniting the efforts of physicists, biologists, mathematicians and medical workers. As V. Anishchenko puts it, in the nearest future the cardio-vascular system of a human will be adequately described by a mathematical model with the parameters corresponding to the physiological condition; and in order to cure this or that illness it will be sufficient to influence the corresponding parameter [1: 203204]. x Education: The so-called synergetic principles of organisation of the educational process are being developed. Investigation into the factors increasing efficiency of the educational process in high and higher schools indicates that an interactive chaotic environment triggers the development of creative thinking [8; 9; 10; 12; 44]. x Arts and culture studies: On the whole, culture and arts can be represented as dynamic self-organising systems that are able to alter their structure due to their own openness and interaction with other systems of the environment. It means that the universal principles of self-organising complex systems development can be projected onto the sphere of culture studies on the whole and the creative process in particular. x Meteorology: Researchers see the validity of the synergetic models in modelling climatic changeability, as for climatic and/or weather pattern studies the interaction of numerous factors should be considered (the so-called co-operative effect), which can adequately be described in categories and notions of synergetics. x Prognostics: Synergetic strategies open a world of new opportunities to foresee and even govern the future of the planet. Making demographic prognoses involves taking into account the development of economy, science, and technology, as well as consideration of social, ecological and political problems of the contemporary world. It calls for an interdisciplinary approach to analyse vast information flows, to work on a great number of factors-parameters (variables and constants) simultaneously. Synergetics has offered powerful research equipment for science and the humanities. It is seen as a conceptual-methodological basis for

Synergetics: The Study of Complexity

25

interdisciplinary synthesis of knowledge, a sort of bridge between various spheres of scientific activity. I would like to finish this chapter with the words of Hermann Haken: “Synergetics is very much an open-ended field in which we have made only the very first steps. In the past one or two decades it has been shown that the behaviour of numerous systems is governed by the general laws of synergetics, and I am convinced that many more examples will be found in the future. On the other hand we must be aware of the possibility that still more laws and possibly still more general laws can be found. this programme is not yet finished but leaves space for future research” [85: 14].

CHAPTER TWO WHAT IS LINGUISTIC SYNERGETICS?

Linguistic Synergetics: A Definition Today language is studied in its whole structural and functional variety, not only within linguistics ‘proper’, but also by a constellation of interdisciplinary approaches many of which have become independent spheres of scientific knowledge with their own subject of investigation and research techniques. Among them are anthropological linguistics, areal linguistics, ethnolinguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics to mention just a few. Linguistic synergetics emerged in the 1990s as an interdisciplinary approach to language studies through the concept network and methods of synergetics. The methodological and conceptual basis of linguistic synergetics is constituted by philosophy, linguistics, and synergetics (see Fig.2.1).

linguistic synergetics

synergetics

philosophy linguistics

Fig. 2.1 The methodological and conceptual basis of linguistic synergetics

The diagram in Fig.2.1 reflects the integrative character of linguistic synergetics, uniting methodologies of sciences and humanities.

28

Chapter Two

One of the components of linguistic synergetics is philosophy, and it is not surprising, as in the words of Academician Vladimir Vernadsky, science grew out of philosophy thousands of years ago [14:83]. Linguistic synergetics is closely connected with philosophy which helps to reflect upon fragments of knowledge obtained in separate disciplines and to synthesise them into a comprehensive world image. Another component of the methodological and conceptual foundation of linguistic synergetics is synergetics itself as an interdisciplinary theory of complex systems studies. Here it is worth distinguishing between synergetics as a scientific method of mathematical modelling of complex systems of various origins (the so-called formalised synergetics) and synergetics as a view of the world, i.e. as a system of principles and techniques of complexity studies (the so-called non-formalised synergetics). Formalised synergetics, or authentic synergetics, constitutes the nucleus of the synergetic scientific paradigm; it employs elaborated formulae and models and is fully used in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and other sciences. Among the greatest contributors to authentic synergetics are the physicist Germann Haken, the chemist Ilya Prigogine, mathematicians Sergei Kurdyumov, Sergei Kapitsa, George Malinetsky, Vladimir Arnold and others. Non-formalised synergetics, also referred to as metaphorical synergetics, makes up the important periphery of the synergetic paradigm. Since it uses fewer formulae, it is seen as a peculiar link between science and the humanities. In the words of Vladimir Budanov, it is within metaphorical synergetics that the first interdisciplinary contacts are made because this is the most creative sphere offering new projects and techniques nourishing the nucleus of synergetics [11]. The last, but still important, component of linguistic synergetics is linguistics itself, which is quite obvious. Contemporary linguistics, in the opinion of Irina German, needs a new paradigm to synthesise all aspects of language structure and to develop understanding of language as a complex hierarchically organised dynamic non-linear system [15; 16]. This paradigm is called synergetics. The key concepts of synergetics are integration, synthesis, cooperation, coherence, non-linearity, dynamism, and evolution. They can be used to describe various complex systems, including language. The expansion of synergetic methods into new areas of research is effective for highlighting the process of the self-development of a system – its main stages, phase-shifts, fluctuations, bifurcation zones, and other features. Since a human language is an open, self-developing, complex system, a

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

29

synergetic approach to the study of various aspects of its structure and functioning is not only possible, but seems absolutely necessary. Thus, linguistic synergetics can be defined as a methodological approach to the description of the dynamic space of language, by which a successive change of states of a language system is understood.

Linguistic Synergetics: Applications The multidimensional ontology of language makes it possible to employ the synergetic methodology in the various studies of language. At the present stage, linguistic synergetics includes the following two principal branches: the synergetics of language and the synergetics of speech (see Fig. 2.2). Obviously, any scheme is only sketchy as it aims at the simplification and generalisation of the information. In other words, it is hardly possible to embrace and/or project all possible aspects and paths of investigation. The above mentioned spheres can be detailed further. No doubt, new research into other subjects is under way. The synergetics of speech (or performance) can be further subdivided into text synergetics, discourse synergetics, idiolect synergetics, and synergetics of speech deviations. Text synergetics aims at establishing the text parameters which enable such a complex system as text to spontaneously form its spatial characteristics. Among the pioneers of this approach to text studies are the Russian linguists Galina Moskalchuk and Konstantin Belousov. Discourse synergetics is dealt with in the works of Lidia Pihtovnikova (Ukraine), Evgeniya Ponomarenko (Russia), and very few others. One of the tasks in discourse synergetics is to reveal the principles of successful communication and the ways of verbal (communicative) influence on human behaviour. Fig. 2.2 (next page) The topical space of linguistic synergetics (a preliminary outline)

Linguistic synergetics

30

synergetics of language

synergetics of speech

Chapter Two

GLDFKURQLFV\QHUJHWLFV

V\QFKURQLFV\QHUJHWLFV

LGLROHFWV\QHUJHWLFV

GHYLDWLRQV

V\QHUJHWLFVRIVSHHFK

WUDQVODWLRQ

V\QHUJHWLFVRI

GLVFRXUVHV\QHUJHWLFV

WH[WV\QHUJHWLFV

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

31

Idiolect synergetics comes close to social linguistics and is directed at the study of peculiarities of the language used by people belonging to a certain social group. Within this approach lie studies of the individual styles of novelists, poets, playwrights, and other writers. Elena Fomenko (Ukraine) and Olena Semenets (Ukraine) work in this sphere. Synergetics of speech deviations has much in common with psycholinguistics and aims to disclose the mechanisms of speech impairment. Much has been done in this field by Raymond Piotrovsky (Russia). The synergetics of language deals with principles of language change and development. It is closely connected with historical linguistics. It aims at understanding the main stages of language evolution, including the emergence of language, the peculiarities of its non-linear development (gradual at times and sometimes fast), the coherent behaviour of its components and subsystems, the impact of external factors (including language contacts) on language structure, etc. A wide range of data has been presented as part of fascinating research into pidgins and creoles. Investigation of language within the synergetic paradigm is imperative and is determined by features of language as an open self-organised synergetic system. Here, subdivision into synchronic synergetics and diachronic synergetics is highly conditional and merely theoretical, for a language system is permanently dynamic. Distinguishing between synchronic and diachronic approaches means temporarily singling out the study of the language system in its dynamic equilibrium (synchrony) and in the phase-transition state, causing qualitative changes in the language’s organisation and functioning (diachrony). Within the synchronic approach to neology and synergetic principles of word-formation in Modern English lie works by Saniya Yenikeeva (Ukraine). Synchronic and diachronic approaches represent the two indispensible, complementary and interrelated planes of the research process. And it is hardly possible to show a preference for one at the expense of the other. No doubt, it is essential to know the contemporary condition and the ways of functioning of the analysed system and/or its subsystem(s). However, it seems particularly important to penetrate into the history of the system’s emergence and changes, to disclose the principles of its organisation, to account for its ‘behaviour’ at such and such stage of development, to outline tendencies and the possible directions of its development in the future. As I see it, diachrony represents a paradigm of synchronic (horizontal) sections, thus resembling a kind of genealogic tree of the system’s states. Diachronic synergetics is sure to offer a new angle

32

Chapter Two

on the dynamic language system, while implementing new principles of the synergetic analysis and synthesis will make it possible to contribute to the theory of complex systems evolution.

Linguistic Synergetics: Aims and Tasks Linguistic synergetics offers new ways of describing the traditional object of analysis by using another meta-language and tools, and it leads the science of language to a cross-disciplinary orbit. Linguistic synergetics is a new stage in the investigation of language as an open, self-regulating system. The system’s equilibria have been fully described within ‘conventional’ linguistics and its branches, while linguistic synergetics aims at the study of language at the change point, in the situations of restructuring and reorganisation caused by external influence. Language is known to be undergoing changes all the time; however, its various levels and subsystems are changing at a different rate. In spite of any alterations, language remains capable of performing its communicative functions in society not only among contemporaries, but also between generations. Consequently, the main task of linguistic synergetics is to reveal, describe, and explain the mechanism of the inner dynamic structure of a language using research principles of synergetics as a paradigm of complexity. Diachronic synergetics, in particular, aims at modelling and interpretating phase-shifts of the system, as well as at projecting possible variants of its change depending upon many-directional bifurcations and a variety of potential attractors. To do so, it is necessary to solve a number of methodological tasks, among them: to define the key concepts of linguistic synergetics; to form a new concept network as a basis for self-organised complexity analysis; to outline the space-temporal coordinates of self-organisation processes; to state scale criteria in a multi-levelled hierarchy of a complex system under analysis; and others. The main idea of diachronic synergetics lies within the multidirectional, non-linear evolution of a language system. The concept of non-linearity is the most essential for language development. Jean Aitchison is right in saying that to think of evolution as a ladder may be misleading as ladders allow only a single-file ascent. She replaces the ladder image with that of a bush with multiple branches [50: 49]. Although it is not at all easy to find an adequate metaphorical definition, I

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

33

cannot but agree that metaphors help us to understand and/or interpret new phenomena in the world around us. To extend Jean Aitchison’s metaphor, branches of a bush can be symbols of a variety of order parameters determining the structural organisation of the whole system. Under the influence of numerous external and internal forces, the branches are able to change the direction of their growth (for instance, indicating the phase-shift, as in the system of the English language, when it turned from the synthetic type into the analytical), to split (pointing at language variety), to break off (signalling the loss of certain categories), to push out many new twigs (like the enrichment of Middle English by affixes of Latin and French origin, and word formation on the basis of original and borrowed components), and so on. Each bush, so to speak, is unique because changes in its structure are determined by a wide range of options of possible paths of development, the choice of which is often chaotic and unpredictable.

Language as a Synergetic System It is, of course, impossible to characterise a language in one formula; languages, like men, are too composite to have their whole essence summed up in one short expression. Otto Jespersen [91: 2]

The attribute ‘synergetic’ in the definition of language as a system is generalising and includes semantic volumes of such adjectives as complex, open, dynamic, self-organised, evolving, non-linear, unstable, and adaptive. No doubt, language is a complex system. However, what is understood by ‘complex’? What makes us think of a language as complex? A human language represents a hierarchically organised megasystem, in which all the components (elements, subsystems, parts etc.) are coherently linked on all structural levels. A degree of complexity of any system is determined not only by a great number of its components, but also by a wide range of links and interactions among the components within the system, as well as by their ability to establish new (e.g. paradigmatic, syntagmatic, etc.) relations with other components and to fit in the existing links. The system’s complexity is closely connected with its flexibility and dynamism.

34

Chapter Two

It is obvious that language is always dynamic; it undergoes changes as a result of outer and inner influences. The language mega-system consisting of hierarchically structured and interconnected systems and subsystems is only relatively stable. To be precise, it is unevenly stable, for some parts of it can be in equilibrium at a given moment, while the other parts may not be. The language system is flexible and open to change. However, its subsystems change at a different rate. A history of the English language proves that phonetic processes are highly dynamic, while grammatical structures tend to remain more or less stable over the course of time. This confirms my supposition that the rate of change taking place on different hierarchic levels of the language mega-system is in inverse proportion to the ‘size’ of a language component: the smaller the component, the more it is likely to change, and vice versa. By ‘size’ is understood not so much the linear length of the given component, but its structural organisation. Thus, a phoneme is the smallest unit of a language system and the building blocks for morphemes. Morphemes are the smallest meaningful units of language and the building blocks for lexemes. Morphemes are known to fall into root morphemes, prefixes, suffixes, infixes, and endings. Lexemes are made up according to certain patterns, e.g. a prefix + a root +/- an ending; a root + a suffix +/- an ending; or a prefix + a root + a suffix +/- an ending. Compound lexemes have more complex structures. A unit of the syntactic level, i.e. a sentence, has much more complex organisation, for a sentence is a unit of communication and denotes various situations. The degree of potential mobility of language levels increases towards the structural simplicity of a language unit. In terms of synergetics, language is a dynamic mega-system, consisting of hierarchically organised levels, differing from each other in rates (tempos) of changes that take place in their subsystems,– what one maight call, ‘differently rated tempo-worlds’. The term ‘tempo-world’ was coined by Sergei Kurdyumov (Russia). He defined it as ‘a world the main characteristic of which is the same tempo of development of its entire constituent complex structures’ [31: 195]. From the viewpoint of their change-tempos, language levels and their subsystems are characterised by different tempo-worlds and, consequently, manifest various degrees of sensitivity and/or resistance to extra-lingual factors that may lead the system out of equilibrium and finally bring about qualitative changes of either certain components or the whole system. To

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

35

put it differently, parts of a mega-system differ in tempos of changes, producing heterogeneity of co-evolutionary processes. To retain its activity and functionality, a system should be not only dynamic but also flexible; it must be able to adjust to changeable external conditions, to alter its inner structure and behaviour, and to select new options for a harmonised existence in the environment. The dynamism, flexibility, and adaptability of a given system, as well as a complicated variety of links among the system’s components – all contribute into the notion of ‘complexity’. According to Ilya Prigogine, complexity is an indispensible feature of the world of dynamic systems. Some scholars, in particular Sergei Kurdyumov and Helen Knyazeva, in studying the phenomenon of complexity distinguish between the following two types of complexity, namely disorganised (or chaotic) complexity and organised complexity. The first type, i.e. disorganised complexity, is represented by a great number of parts (subsystems), interacting with each other chaotically. Disorganised complexity can be described within the theory of probability and statistical methods. Organised complexity is the type of complexity founded on determined, interdependent relationships among parts (subsystems) of the whole system. It is obvious that at various moments in their existence, evolving systems may have this or that type of complexity, depending upon the stage of the development of the given system. At the starting point a certain disorganisation is inherent in the state of instability of any system. The closer the system is towards a harmonised, stable state, the lesser the degree of chaos. The system is organised by its control parameters leading it to an attractor, i.e. a new state of equilibrium. This means that at the state of stability one type of complexity (the disorganised one) is ousted by the other (the so-called organised complexity), and the whole system is able to exist and perform its functions in this new state until the environment allows it. When and if the external conditions change, the system – which is always seeking self-preservation – will be looking for new means and forms of adaptation. This is why the stage of organised complexity may change into the stage of disorganised complexity: the system is after new forms of existence. The process of changes aiming at adaptation to the altered environment starts anew. Besides being dynamic and adaptive, a complex system must be open. ‘Openness’ should be understood in the functional aspect, i.e. as the ability of the system to interact with other systems in the world, whatever their nature. This interaction may include information exchange, energy exchange and/or substance exchange. Everything in the world is connected

36

Chapter Two

with everything else, and things and phenomena can be seen as separate only at a certain stage of scientific research, because all that exists is integrated into the common network of interactions and interlinks. Then, is language an open system? Undoubtedly, yes. The open character of language manifests itself in reflecting the social, economic, political and cultural life of its society, as well as the scientific and technological advances of the time. Besides reflecting, language transmits the new notions by saving them in its lexical depository. Language contacts, as a rule, result in various lexical borrowings. Nowadays, mass media and the Internet have considerably accelerated information exchange. Under the conditions of multinational society and global migrations of population, language cannot but change, though only to a certain degree, for any system, including language, seeks selfpreservation. To retain its form and functioning, the system may only allow insignificant fluctuations, i.e. such deviations in the dynamics of its components that do not lead to disorder and chaos but preserve the subordination of the system’s components. In the case of significant fluctuations, a part of a system or the whole system may lose equilibrium and enter the state of chaos and instability, which usually leads to a qualitatively new behaviour of the system and, as a result, to a new state of the system. The so-called order parameters function as synchronisers of the behaviour of the system’s components. Order parameters are certain constants of the system determining the coordinates and the configuration of states of the system at a given moment or period of time and providing the system’s ability to function. In language, the role of order parameters is performed by various grammatical categories. In the course of time and as a result of the system’s openness, the nomenclature of order parameters may change (compare, for instance, the parameter of word order in Old English with that of Modern English). The definition of language as a synergetic system should be supplemented with one more notion, namely non-linearity. Non-linearity as a mathematical notion stands for a certain type of mathematical equation that may have several absolutely different solutions. The non-linearity of a language system is revealed in the dependency of features and functions of the system on the behaviour of each of its component. The notion of linearity is probably applicable if we want to denote the order of language elements in a speech chain. Summing up, human language can be defined as a complex synergetic megasystem, which changes and develops in compliance with the universal principles of the complex system’s behaviour revealed within the

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

37

theory of synergetics. Synergetic systems are multi-component systems characterised by the complex behaviour of their parts and subsystems. From the perspective of the synergetic approach, human language is considered an open, dynamic, non-linear, self-organising system with all its hierarchical subsystems and elements coherently interconnected and controlled by governing parameters. That the language system has features of a synergetic system (openness, complexity, non-linearity, etc.) calls for a certain reconsideration of the notion of ‘system’ and finally raises the question of the system’s borders. In philosophy, a system is usually defined as a set of components closely interconnected with one another. Any system is seen as a certain whole, representing a unity of its parts. The philosophical definition of a system has determined the traditional definition of a language system as a large coherent system including many subsystems connected with one another and united into the whole. Traditional definitions of a language system, though slightly different, have much in common because they are grounded on the following four main concepts: unity, elements, structure and functions. A synergetic view of a system allows the inclusion of new senses into the notion of a system. It seems insufficient to imagine a system as a certain isolated set of components. The new definition of a system should include instability, openness, non-linearity, co-operation and co-evolution of its parts.

Fractality as a Fundamental Feature of the Language System The term fractal (from the Latin adjective fractus, ‘broken’ or ‘fragmented’, and the Latin verb frangere, ‘to break’ or ‘to create irregular fragments’) was coined and introduced into scientific usage by Benoit Mandelbrot (1924–2010), the developer of the fractal geometry of nature, to denote ‘a family of scaling shapes’ [95; 96:1]. The main feature of fractals is their self-similarity (scaling), i.e. when a part is structurally similar to the whole. In other words, fractals exhibit invariance. Many natural objects have a fractal-like structure, among them fern leaves, corals, clouds, trees, coastlines, mountain chains, river basins, the blood vessel systems of live organisms, etc. Even the solar system is structurally similar to the organisation of an atom. In the words of B. Mandelbrot, nature exhibits not simply a higher degree, but an altogether

38

Chapter Two

different level of complexity, and the number of distinct scales of the length of natural patterns is for all practical purposes infinite [96: 1]. What about language? Has a language system a fractal type of organisation? My observations allow me to give a positive answer. I argue that the similarity patterns within the language system (I mean here English as the subject of my special analysis) are represented by the subject–predicate structure (S–P) which verbalises a proposition as a unit of knowledge. A proposition represented by an S–P structure can be found not only on the level of the sentence, but also in formation of words and word combinations. Thus, for instance, English compound nouns a lady-writer, a boymessenger, a guard dog and the like consist of two stems which are in the predicative relationship ‘someone who is/works as something’: a lady-writer = ‘a lady who is a writer’, a boy-messenger = ‘a boy who is a messenger’, a guard dog = ‘a dog trained to guard a place or person’, etc. In the compounds like toothache, sunrise, sunset (AmE sundown), waterfall one can see predicative relationships, too: a toothache=‘the tooth aches’, a sunrise= ‘the sun rises’, a sunset= ‘the sun sets’, a sundown =‘the sun goes down’, a waterfall=‘the water falls’. The subject–predicate structure is also found in the relationships between the components of such compound adjectives as footsore and heartsick in which the S–P structure is given in an elliptic form: footsore=‘the foot is sore’, heartsick=‘the heart is sick’. The predicate is not always represented by a single finite verb. It can also be expressed by a verb phrase (in other terms, by a syntactic structure of complementation), i.e. a combination of a finite verb (V) with dependent elements (C) predetermined by the verb’s valence.

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

39

It is possible to distinguish between the following types of complements: a subjective complement, or predicative; an object; an adverbial complement and a verbal complement. Examples: He is clever. – ‘clever’ is a predicative; He speaks English. – ‘English’ is an object; He is in the classroom. – ‘in the classroom’ is an adverbial complement; He began to call the roll. – ‘to call the roll’ is a verbal complement. A verbal complement is represented by a non-finite form of the verb and is included into the predicate (“He began” is semantically incomplete, that is why the infinitive is part of the predicate). Unlike an adverbial modifier, an adverbial complement is obligatory and cannot be omitted from a sentence without violating the meaning of the latter. By contrast, an adverbial modifier is structurally optional as it is not included into the verb’s valence frame, hence it can be omitted from a sentence without affecting the sentence’s syntactic structure. The general formula of the S–P structure in which the predicate P is represented by a verb phrase is the following: S–P[V+C]. A fragment of the above structure is often realised in compound nouns: weedkiller (a chemical used for killing weeds), nail scissors (scissors used to cut nails), a keyholder (a device for keeping keys), etc., compound adjectives: frostbitten (affected by frost), man-made (made by man), etc. [for some other models, see also: 77:462 ff]. Another illustration of the fractal organisation of the English language structure is the blurring of the distinctive borders between a lexeme, a word combination, and a sentence in the syntactic function of an attribute. Let us consider the sentence, It was a usual boy-meets-girl sort of film [133: 155]. Here the attribute boy-meets-girl is represented by a syntactic structure of predication S–P, or, to be more precise, by its variant S– P[V+O], in which the components are hyphenated so that they can be perceived as a single lexeme. Shining examples of compression of the proposition and its grammatical representative (i.e. the structure of predication) into a single

40

Chapter Two

lexeme are the nouns whatchamacallit [133: 1655] and whodunit (from Who’s done it?), as in: The book is one of those whodunits where you don’t find out who the murderer is till the very end [133: 1661] In other words, the syntactic structure of predication has been gathered into one unit (here – a noun) and has entered a noun paradigm (which is shown in the ending of the plural number -s, in the combination with a demonstrative pronoun, in its syntactic function, etc.) In the English language, the syntactic structure of predication S–P is represented by two types – a primary and a secondary predication. A primary structure of predication consists of a grammatical subject S, usually expressed by a noun or a personal pronoun in the nominative case, and a predicate P, expressed either by a single finite verb Pv (as in Time flies) or by a verb phrase represented by a syntactic structure of complementation P[V+C], as in: Time is a great healer; I like your new haircut [133: 822]; After waiting for half an hour she was beginning to get angry [133: 114]. A secondary structure of predication S’–P’ differs from the primary one in that the first component (i.e. a secondary subject S’) can be expressed by a noun in the common case, or a personal pronoun in the objective case, and the other component (i.e. a secondary predicate P’) is always a non-finite form of a verb with or without dependent words. A secondary structure of predication, or, in other words, a complex, represents a certain situation in the form of a predicative wordcombination. Thus, for example, the sentence: I eventually found her reading a newspaper in the library [133: 520] contains the following two situations: 1) I eventually found her and 2) She was reading a newspaper in the library. The grammatical analogue of each of the situations is a primary structure of predication. The use of a secondary structure of predication not only permits uniting the two situations within one sentence (which distinguishes a simple sentence from a composite one) but also makes it possible to compress the volume of the transmitted information without lessening its value.

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

41

Another manifestation of the fractality of the language system is represented by composite sentences with included (or embedded) clauses. These clauses are so named because they are included in the primary structure of predication. Since the primary structure of predication consists of two components S and P, an embedded clause can be included in S or P. Let us consider the following example: What really concerned her was how unhappy the child was [133: 1655]. The underlined clauses function as the subject S and the predicative Cs respectively and are included in one overall structure of the sentence, S– P[V+Cs]. The detailed formula of the analysed sentence is as follows: S(S1+P1) – P [V + Cs (S2+P2)]. In the sentences, I don’t know whether I should tell her or not [133: 786] and Did you find where I left the key? [133: 520], the underlined clauses function as an object and are included in one overall structure of predication of the sentence: S–P[V+O (S1+P1)]. They cannot be omitted from a sentence without violation of the structural and/or semantic wholeness of the latter. I also see the fractality of the language structure in the construction of composite sentences with attributive clauses and/or adverbial clauses. These two types of subordinate clauses are not included in the valence frame of a predicate verb; hence they can practically extend a sentence infinitely. A vivid illustration of such a case is the following well-known verse: This is the house that Jack built. This is the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. This is the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. This is the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. This is the dog that worried the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. This is the cow with the crumpled horn that tossed the dog that worried the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. This is the maiden all forlorn who milked the cow with the crumpled horn that tossed the dog that worried the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.

42

Chapter Two This is the man all tattered and torn who loved the maiden all forlorn who milked the cow with the crumpled horn that tossed the dog that worried the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built. This is the priest all shaven and shorn who married the man all tattered and torn who loved the maiden all forlorn who milked the cow with the crumpled horn that tossed the dog that worried the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.

These lines could be continued still further. The only thing needed is a new substance with certain characteristics attributed. From a synergetic point of view, this verse is also a perfect illustration of a so-called cyclic attractor uniting different fragments and directing them into the same trajectory. The language system is based on the fractal principle of organisation: elements of one level of a language make up the building material for more complicated combinations of another level of a language and, in their turn, serve as the foundation for even more complex configurations on a further level of organisation, and so on and so forth. Thus, phonemes are united into morphemes, the latter are joined into lexemes (or words). Words are combined into collocations and sentences, and then a text emerges. It is noteworthy that the higher the level of combinations, the wider the range of possible alternatives will be. Let me explain what I mean. Any human language (here, only languages of the Indo-European family are being considered) uses a limited number of letters, e.g. the English alphabet contains 26 letters, while the Russian alphabet has 33, etc. The number of letters of this or that language is always many thousands of times less than the number of words formed out of these letters. At the same time, a language word-stock serves for constructing, in fact, an infinite number of sentences. While it is possible (although not at all easy!) to count and collect words in dictionaries or to create an enormous corpus, like The British National Corpus, it is far from possible to do the same with sentences and texts, even in the modern age of high technology and computers. As seen from the above given material, the notion of fractality is applicable to language as an evolving, developing, changing and ever dynamic complex system. Using terms of synergetics, it is possible to state that a language structure is based on a fractality principle where a fragment resembles the whole. The main pattern of vertical self-similarity within the language is the subject–predicate structure. In the process of cognition of the environment,

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

43

man notices substances first, then their properties and characteristics, and only later, their relationships with other substances in the world. The process of cognition consists in a recursive, infinitely repeated mental act of attributing certain features to substances and/or establishing a wide variety of relationships among substances. The syntactic structure of predication S–P is a linguistic embodiment of this process. The S–P structure is fundamental for reconstruction in the human mind of the dynamic subject–attribute environment. On the one hand, this form is able to compress information (as in a compound word), and, on the other hand, it allows the inclusion of other structures of predication (as in composite sentences), unrolling into a potential infinity of mental activity. The application of the terms ‘fractal’ and ‘fractality’ to the study of language seems useful as they not only change the deeply-rooted idea of a system as a close set of interacting components, but also help us to understand the mechanism of possible changes and instability of a system’s boundaries, and to take our first steps on the road to synthesis.

Language as a Scale-Free Network One of the most important notions of synergetics is the notion of nonlinearity, i.e. a kind of hierarchical organisation with a wide variety of potentially possible ways for the development of an open system, with the irreversibility of changes, and with the variation of degrees of intensity of the processes taking place in the given system during its self-organisation. Non-linearity is revealed at different levels of its organisation. Thus, the number of morphemes is always less than the number of words formed out of them. The number of words in a language is always less than the total number of their meanings. Within a sentence, the number of links among the words always exceeds the number of the words. On the text level, words and word-combinations, as well as sentences and super phrasal units, realise numerous prospective and retrospective links, as if cementing the given text into a certain complex hierarchically organised system. There are many other examples of non-linearity of language. The application of synergetic methods of analysis is essential for understanding the very notion of non-linearity. It is even more important for modelling the latter. Models are useful not only for specific purposes. They can also serve as a methodological and/or philosophical basis for research. It is possible to represent the notion of non-linearity with the help of the so-called scale-free network with a cluster structure. The very term scale-free network was coined and introduced in 1999 by the American

44

Chapter Two

physicist Albert-László Barabási (b.1967) to denote a network whose degree distribution follows a power law.

Albert-László Barabási Barabási discovered that the websites of the World Wide Web form the network not chaotically but following a certain generative mechanism, which he proposed to call ‘preferential attachment’. The same mechanism applies to neuron networks, computer networks, social networks and the like, that are characterised by a cluster structure and follow a power law distribution. The latter implies that nodes with fewer ties are more numerous than hubs, i.e. nodes with a great number of ties. The network pattern has made it possible to explain emergence of social communities and naturalsystems. As seen in Fig. 2.3, a scale-free network has a cluster structure and is formed out of nodes, representing certain elements of the given complex system, and ties among the nodes, demonstrating a variety of relationships among the system’s components. Such a network has a complex inner structure determined by the number of nodes with a few ties and those with a greater number of ties (hubs). Nodes are connected with one another within the network. However, such connections are far from being

What is Linguistic Synergetics?

45

random. Rather, according to A. – L. Barabási, they display generic organising (topological) principles shared by rather different systems. Peculiarities of such interconnections predetermine features and functions of the whole system. The notion of a scale-free network may be applied to the study of social interactions. Thus, a society may be represented as a complex network in which nodes stand for individuals connected with one another. Nodes within the network of motorways are cities and towns joined by these roads. Networks of airlines connecting cities of the world are scalefree, too. Scientific citations, as well as co-author scientific networks, can be modelled as scale-free networks. Similarly, it is possible to construct a network of inter-personal ties among literary characters within a novel, etc.

Fig. 2.3 The scale-free network

The notion of a scale-free network may also be applied to the study of a human language. In 2001, American scientists studied combinatory links among words on the basis of The British National Corpus. As a result, a network of 440,902 word-nodes was constructed [see: 55: 53]. In some other research, the network method was used to analyse 23,279 synonymic

46

Chapter Two

words of the English language. It turned out that they make up a huge cluster containing 22,311 word-nodes [ibidem]. It seems obvious that the vocabulary of a language is a dynamic megasystem of scale-free networks reflecting a wide variety of relationships among words of the given language. Parts of speech, such as the noun, the verb, the adverb, etc., differ from one another in their combination patterns. Each part of speech has a certain cluster structure displaying the coherence of the given word class. The number of nodes in a cluster indicates valence features and combinability of the lexemes. Verb clusters (hubs) and noun clusters are the largest. Moreover, they are the basic clusters. Such an interpretation fully agrees with the psychological principles of the construction of sentences. In the words of Steven Pinker, though sentences are strings of words, our mental algorithms for grammar do not pick out words by their linear positions, such as ‘first word’, ‘second word’, and so on. Rather, the algorithms group words into phrases, and phrases into even bigger phrases, and give each one a mental label, like ‘subject noun phrase’ or ‘verb phrase’ [99: 41]. The combinatory potency of word classes is not the same: some parts of speech possess the so-called active valence and demand structuralsemantic complements, while others have the so-called passive valence and function as dependent components in phrases and combinations. It has been proved that the verb has a far wider range of structural-semantic ties than any other word class. The verb may be considered a condensed proposition, the nucleus of the semantic and syntactic structure of a sentence which determines the overall slot model of a sentence. It is noteworthy, that the verb valence only predetermines its potential combinability; in a sentence (utterance) not all of the possible valence slots of a given verb are filled, but only those that are included into the communicative and/or pragmatic intention of a speaker. The larger the context (a verb phrase ĺ a verb sentence ĺ a text), the more slots within the verb valence frame are taken. Our research into the combinability of the English verb has made it possible to classify verbs according to their valence features into the following groups: x monovalent, i.e. having only one possible slot – the subject slot. Here belong intransitive verbs, or more precisely, verbs in their intransitive usage; x divalent, i.e. having two possible slots, one of which is the subject slot. This group includes several subgroups depending upon the

Whhat is Linguistic Synergetics?

47

type of the final slot that may bee taken either by a predicative, or an objecct, or an adverrbial complem ment; x trivallent, i.e. havinng three possib ble slots, one of which is th he subject slot. This group is also subdivid ded into severaal subgroups according a to thee grammaticaal (syntactic) properties p of the componen nts in the valennce frame; x tetravvalent, i.e. having four possible slots, one of whicch is the subjeect slot. Againn, this group iss not structuraally homogeneeous, as it is reppresented by a few patterns; x pentaavalent and hexavalent, i.ee. having five and six posssible slots respeectively, one of o which is th he subject slott and the rest are taken by seemantically annd syntacticallly different coomponents. In other words, the nuumber of valen nce slots of thhe verb lies in the range from 1 to 6 ((see Fig. 2.4).. 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

monovallent

divalent d

Fig. 2.4 The E English verbs valence v groups

trivalent

48

Chapter Two

There are no zero-valent verbs in the English language. It should be noted that the most numerous is the group of divalent verbs. This is followed by the group of trivalent verbs. Together, these two groups include the majority (almost 90%) of the verb layer of the English wordstock. Our research provides evidence that there exists a reverse relation between the number of valence slots and the number of verbs possessing that exact number of slots. The more valence slots (or nodes) a verb frame has, the smaller is the number of verbs fitting the frame. In terms of modern science, the verb is a hub in a scale-free network of the word-stock as it concentrates (and realises) numerous ties with other language units. However, a scale-free network is not a frozen graph. Being an open system, it undergoes certain changes caused by external influences, hence constant variations in the outer configuration of the graph. An evolving open system may lose its old ties and acquire new ones. However, new elements are not joined chaotically, but follow the principle of preferential attachment. According to this principle, a degree of appearance of new ties is directly proportional to the growth of the number of ties. In other words, hubs are more likely to grow in size and to attract new ties than nodes with few connections. The appearance of new ties may be caused by alterations of the distributional environment of the analysed component, its usage in a new context, in another semantic role or syntactic function, etc., which cannot but reflect a shift in quantitative and/or qualitative characteristics of this component’s valence frame. Summing up, the issue of valence and the combinability of various word-classes highlights only one of the many sides of lexical dynamics. In the chapter that follows, the reader is invited to have a look at the historical development of the English language from a synergetic perspective.

CHAPTER THREE DIACHRONIC SYNERGETICS: A FEW NOTES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

The synergetics of language deals with principles of language change and development. It is closely connected with historical linguistics. It aims to understand the main laws of language evolution – emergence of language, peculiarities of its non-linear development (gradual at times and sometimes fast), the coherent behaviour of its components and subsystems, the impact of external factors (including language contacts) on the language structure, etc. Language must be considered in dissoluble connection with its speakers. Language history is closely related to the history of the people. Both language and society change – through numerous fluctuations towards balanced states. Both follow a non-linear path, leading out of chaos to order and stability. Under such circumstances, the value of synergetics on the whole, and linguosynergetics in particular, is hard to overestimate in modelling the historical changes of language and its society.

The History of the English Language: A Problem of Appropriate Division into Periods Traditionally, the history of the English language is divided into three periods, namely: Old English, Middle English, and Modern (New) English. This division is usually connected with certain important political events which influenced the further development of the country and the language. Thus, the first period is linked with the Germanic invasion of Britain (starting from the 5th century); the second period is associated with the Norman Conquest (1066); the third period begins (according to different scholars) either in 1476 with the introduction of printing or in

50

Chapter Three

1485, the year when the intermittent Wars of the Roses (1455–1485) came to an end. However, such a politically grounded division does not solve the problem of the periodisation completely. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the history of a nation is closely connected with the history of the language spoken by its people, and that some historical events did influence the language greatly. On the other hand, the great influence of Scandinavian tribes who invaded and gradually settled in Anglo-Saxon Britain goes practically unnoticed (in the sense that it is not reflected in the above given division as having any importance in the fate of English). As seen in Table 3.1, most scholars agree that the Old English period starts with the Germanic conquest of the British Isles (c. 450 AD), though some scientists consider the 7th century to be the beginning of the Old English period as it was the time when the first manuscripts appeared. What, then, about the second period – Middle English? Many researchers prefer to connect the beginning of that period with the Norman Conquest of Britain in 1066, because they see it as a direct cause of the transition from Old English to Middle English. In other words, the landmark of the Middle English period resulted from an external factor. However, there are many other people who choose a later date – 1100 or even 1150 AD to mark the beginning of the Middle English period, basing their arguments on the internal changes within the language system. Elly van Gelderen explains the choice of the year 1150 as follows: “The reason 1150 is chosen here is that texts are written (e.g. the last part of the Peterborough version of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle) that are definitely ‘modern’ in having lost many of the endings and in starting to make use of grammatical words” [76: 10]. Another external factor to mark the beginning of the next period – Modern English – is the year 1476 when the first printed books appeared in Britain. It was an event of great importance for further changes in English. That was also the time of the disintegration of the feudal society and transition towards absolute monarchy. However, many scientists choose the year 1500 as the end of the Middle English period and, consequently, the beginning of the next stage in the development of the English language, focusing on the internal conditions of the language system itself: “By then most grammatical changes have taken place and the Great Vowel Shift is under way” [76:10]. Many historians speak of the Early Modern English period as a separate period in the history of the language, choosing the year 1700 as the time of the completion of the Great Vowel Shift and the standardisation of spelling, or the year 1776 when the Declaration of US

Diachronic Synergetics

51

Independence was adopted; others include Early Modern English in the Modern English period.

Sources

Table 3.1 Periods in the history of the English Language

Periods in the history of the English language

I.

Ivanova I.P. et al. (1999:7)

Ilyish B.A. (1958: 38)

Baugh A. and Th.Cable (2002: 52)

The Cambridge History of the English language

Gelderen Elly (2006:10)

7th –11th cc.

450 – 1100 (Old English)

450 – 1150 (Old English)

450 –1066

450 –1150

(Old English)

(Old English)

12th – 15th c.

1100 – 1500

1150 – 1500

1066 – 1476

(Middle English)

(Middle English)

(Middle English)

(Middle English)

(Middle English)

16th – 17th c.

1500 – the present

1500 – the present

1476 – 1776

1500 – 1700

(Modern English)

(Modern English)

(Early Modern English)

(Early Modern English)

-

-

1776 – the present (Modern English)

1700 – the present (Modern English)

(Old English) II.

III.

(Early Modern English) IV.

17th c. – the present (Modern English)

1150 – 1500

As is seen from the above brief review, external factors (wars, conquests, revolutions, etc.) can trigger significant changes in the language system. That is why the problem of periodisation of a language history can be solved only partially. Some scholars argue that the division of the history of English should be based on internal, i.e. linguistic, criteria.

52

Chapter Three

Thus, the famous English scholar, Henry Sweet (1845–1912), took the state of unstressed inflections as linguistic grounds for the three main divisions. In 1873 he wrote: I propose, therefore, to start with the three main divisions of Old, Middle and Modern, based mainly on the inflectional characteristics of each stage. Old English is the period of full inflections (nama, gifan, caru), Middle English of leveled inflections (name, given, care), and Modern English of lost inflections (naam, giv, caar). [Cited in: 64]

On the whole, this statement seems correct. However, a closer examination of the Modern English language reveals that some inflections do still exist, though they are not as numerous as in early periods of English language history, e.g. -s/-es in regular plural nouns, -(e)s in present simple (3rd person singular), -ed in past simple (for regular verbs). This testifies against the statement about Modern English as a period of lost inflections. Moreover, as Norman Blake points out, in the Old English period there are many examples of the levelling of inflections in some of the extant texts, just as in Middle English certain texts show the fall of most inflections [64: 7]. It might further be concluded that the inflectionally (=morphologically) based division is also arguable and vulnerable. A question then arises: Is it at all possible to single out a certain linguistic phenomenon (or several phenomena) as reliable grounds for the division of the roughly sixteen-century-long history of English into any periods? Unfortunately, the answer is negative. And the reason lies deep within the structure of the language system and the principles of its change. It is a well-known fact that language is a complex system. I argue that language is a synergetic mega-system. By ‘synergetic systems’, I do not just mean complex systems composed of numerous elements. Synergetic systems are not only multi-component but they are also characterised by the complex behaviour of their parts and subsystems. Moreover, a synergetic system is non-linear and self-organising, which means it has the ability to acquire a spatial, temporal or functional structure without specific interference from the outside [85]. It is a parameter-organised system, i.e. a system in which macroscopic variables, called the order parameters, govern the behaviour of the microscopic parts by the so-called ‘slaving principle’. Changes in the parameters trigger instability within the system and may cause drastic re-construction of either certain subsystems or the whole system.

Diachronic Synergetics

53

Language is never static. It undergoes constant changes in its different parts and subsystems which are interconnected with each other. Moreover, these changes are non-linear in the sense that they occur at different rates and at different times. It seems impossible to date certain language changes, even if written texts are to be taken into consideration: in different dialects of English, changes did not happen simultaneously (most changes are known to have spread from the north of the country to the southern parts). From this it follows that we can hardly demarcate the periods in the history of the English language based either on political or linguistic criteria to everyone’s satisfaction. Any dates taken to mark the beginning of a certain period are doomed to be but rough and approximate.

Diachronic Linguosynergetics: Focus on Phonetic Changes The phonetic system of the English language has changed significantly over the last fifteen centuries. While Old English has much in common with other ancient languages of the Germanic group, it is in the Middle Ages and in the later period that English follows another trajectory of development. Observation of the historical development of the phonology of English has revealed that within the system of vowels, both qualitative and quantitative changes took place. Thus, vowels in unstressed positions gradually weakened, reduced and/or became lost. A number of vowels in stressed syllables developed into diphthongs, while existing diphthongs turned into monophthongs, and the vocalisation of consonants triggered the formation of new diphthongs. In the system of consonants, less drastic changes took place, the main of which being the process of assimilation. A historical analysis of the evolution of the phonetic system of English has made it possible for me to propose the notion of ‘phase states of the phonetic system of language’ in order to account for the directed chainlike and cyclic mode of phonemic alternations in the history of English. In what follows, the review of historical changes in English phonology is based on the data given in the most authoritative books on the history of the English language, among them [Barber et al. 2009; Baugh 2006; Brunner 1950; Hock 1991; Gelderen 2006; Jespersen 1905; Mugglestone 2006; Mitchell and Robinson 1997] and others.

Chapter Three

54

Historical changes within vowels A characteristic feature of the Old English vowel system is seen in the stability of back vowels and the instability of front vowels, especially of short front vowels that, in the course of time, became diphthongs. In Old English the following vowels occurred in a stressed position: a) b) c) d)

short monophthongs: a, æ, e, i, o, u, y; long monophthongs: Ɨ, ۘ, Ɲ, Ư, ǀ, nj, ी; short diphthongs: ea, eo, io, ie; long diphthongs: Ɲa, Ɲo, Ưo, Ưe.

Old English diphthongs had the first element (i.e. the head) stressed. All languages of the Germanic group had short and long monophthongs, as well as short and long diphthongs. What seems specific to Old English is that certain short diphthongs developed from originally short monophthongs in a certain sound environment. However, by Middle English they had disappeared. Noteworthy is the fact that Old English vowels (which were Germanic by origin) did not always have regular correspondences in Gothic or Old High Germanic. In other words, as long ago as early Old English, the phonological system of English was beginning to split from the systems of cognate Germanic languages. In terms of synergetics, this must have been a bifurcation point. One of the factors contributing to such phonological differentiation was the geographic remoteness of the Germanic tribes of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who settled on the British Isles, from their continental kinsmen. This gradually weakened communicative ties between representatives of the same lingual group. Let us consider some linguistic facts. In Old English before the nasal consonants [m] and [n], i, u, o were used instead of Germanic e, o, a respectively, as seen from: em > im: OHG neman > OE niman «take»; om > um: OHG koman > OE cuman «come»; on > un: OHG donar > OE Þunor «thunder»; an> an/ on: OHG mann > OE mann, monn «man»; OSax land, OHG lant > OE land, lond «land»; Ɨn > ǀn: OSax mƗnuth, OHG mƗnǀd> OE mǀna˜ «month». Another peculiarity of Old English vocalism consisted in the process of diphthongisation of front vowels before [rr], [r+consonant], [ll], [l+consonant],

Diachronic Synergetics

55

[h]. This phonetic phenomenon is known as breaking. Among the most vivid examples are: Got. stairno OHG sterno > OEsteorra «star»; Got. arms, OHG arm > OE earm «poor»; Got. hairto > OE heorte «heart»; OHG alt > OE eald, ald «old»; Got. ahtau, OHG ahto >OE eahta «eight». Unlike Gothic, Old High German and Old Saxon, in Old English the intervocalic h [Ȥ], [Ȥ’] was lost, which lead to formation of a long diphthong, as in: a + hĻ + a ĺ Ɲa: Got., OHG slahan – OE slƝan «slay», OHG zahar – OE tƝar «a tear»; e + hĻ + a ĺ Ɲo: OHG sehan – OE sƝon «see», Got. tehan, OHG zehen – OE tƝon «ten»; i + hĻ + a ĺ Ɲo: OSax thƯhan – OE ÞƝon «thrive»; e + hĻ + uĺ Ɲo: OHG swehur – OE swƝor «husband’s father». Scholars have already noted that in different dialects of the Old English language phonetic changes were also different. Further evidence of the multidimensional development of the phonemic layer of the language was the so-called velar umlaut (the 8th century) which consisted in diphthongisation of the front vowels a, e, i in the syllable preceding the back vowels u, o, for example, in dialects of the Angles: a > ea: caru > cearu «care»; alo˜ > ealu «ale»; e > eo: hefon > heofon «heavon»; i > io: silufr > siolufr > siolfor «silver». From a synergetic perspective, the phonetic system of Old English, being a constellation of dialects spoken within kingdoms fighting for supremacy, was in a chaotic state, in non-equilibrium, as it was going through the stage of formation. This situation showed the absence of any external driving forces which could have regulated multidirectional fluctuations in order to set up common standards. Hence, the system’s rushing about the phase space of potential states. During the Middle English period the following main changes in the system of stressed vowels took place:

Chapter Three

56

x original long vowels were shortened before doubled consonants, as in: næddre < OHG nƗtara, OSax. nƗdra «adder»; x OE short diphthongs ceased to exist; x OE long diphthongs Ɲa, Ɲo, Ưo were lost; x OE monophthong æ disappeared as well; x remaining OE diphthongs became monophthongs (not later than the 11th century); x new diphthongs developed: ai, ei, au, ou, eu; x diphthongs oi and ui were borrowed from French. The fact that Old English diphthongs [ie], [Ưe] were used alongside short and long monophthongs [y], [ी], [i], [Ư] (as in: nieht, niht, nyht; gelƯefan, gel٦fan) was evidence of the process of simplification, and, by the beginning of Middle English, the above mentioned diphthongs were also lost. Table 3.2 Changes in the system of stressed monophthongs in English Stressed vowels

Germanic form

Short monophthongs

a

>

a

Middle English a

*a

>

æ

–

e

>

e

e

i

i

o

o

i, e Ĥ

Long monophthongs

> >

Old English

*Ĥ, e

>

u

u

Ĥ>u

>

y

–

*ai > *Ɲ > *Ɨ >

Ɨ Ǚ

Ɨ –

Ɲ

Ɲ

Ɲ

Ư

Ư

*Ɲ > *Ɨ > ǀ >

ǀ

ǀ

nj

nj

nj

ý

–

>

*ei > Ư

*Ĥ > nj

> > >

Diachronic Synergetics

57

Using the data given in [6; 7; 45; 60; 66; 76], the process of changes in the system of English stressed vowels can be generalised as in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. The asterisk (*) is used to designate reconstructed phonemes. Table 3.3 Changes in the system of stressed diphthongs in English Stressed vowels

Germanic form

Old English

Short diphthongs

æ > æo > also: a >ea >

ea

–

(> æ > a)

eo io > eo ie Ɲɚ

– – – –

(>ö > e)

Long diphthongs

e > i > iu > e > ie > *aĤ > Ǚo > also: Ǚ>Ǚo> Ɲ > Ư > Ưu > Ɲ > iƝ >

Ɲo Ưo > eǀ Ưe

– – – ai

(>ö: > Ɲ) (> Ɲ)

Normal diphthongs

Middle English

(> Ǚ > Ɲ)

au ou eu iu oi ui

The emergence of new diphthongs is traditionally connected with (a) the vocalisation of w and of the palatal and velar g following a vowel and (b) with development of glides between vowels and the following palatal or velar h [Ȥ]. As a result of the vocalisation of the palatal g and the appearance of glides before the palatal Ȥ, there developed diphthongs with the second element i. Diphthongs with the second element u emerged as a result of vocalisation of w, the velar g and the appearance of glides before velar Ȥ. Karl Brunner gave the following examples: OE æ + palatal g = ai: OE dæg ĺ MidE dai «day», OE a + palatal g = au: OE dragan ĺ MidE drauen, drawen «draw», OE o + palatal g = ou: OE boga ĺ MidE boue, bowe «bow».

58

Chapter Three

The process of the loss of old diphthongs and the simultaneous formation of new diphthongs refers to Late Old English and Early Middle English. Using the meta-language of synergetics, it is possible to state that within the given time period the phonological system of language was going through a bifurcation zone, dissipating old components and acquiring new ones. The loss of a number of phonemes violated the symmetry of the phonological system, which caused a rapid restructuring of the system in order to achieve equilibrium. Of special interest is the fact (which can be seen in Table 3.3 above) that there is a certain cycle in the chainlike change of some phonemes. Thus, for instance, the Germanic form e, which gave the diphthong eo in Old English, in Middle English returns through intermediate stages to its original form. The same is observed with the long Ɲ. In terms of synergetics, such a cyclic character of changes can be interpreted as the movement of the system around the definite space of states (forms). Obviously, the trajectories of phonetic changes, in spite of their variety, do have quantitative limits of possible states and stages of transition to the latter. This partially explains the fact that, as observed by Hermann Otto Paul, vowel a, though able to change gradually into any other vowel, at first develops either towards i, or towards u. I think that one of the factors limiting any stochastic rushing of the system around the space of states lies within the physiological peculiarities of sound production, including the type of a syllable (stressed or unstressed), the force of its articulation, as well as the place of its articulation, etc. I argue that there exists a space of states for the phonetic system of language, in which any changes within consonants or vowels are not occasional but of a regular character, determined by the peculiarities of a given language. This suggestion is supported by directionality of qualitative changes in pre-written Old English. A good example is the phenomenon of i-umlaut which consisted in the following: back or low vowels (short and long) u, o, a in the pre-position to i partially mutated, moved forward and raised, changing into y, e, æ (short and long, respectively) [see: 60: 122; 76: 53; 87: 113]. That change is seen in the following pairs of words, such as Old English full and fyllan (Modern English full and fill), Old English fox and fyxen (Modern English fox and vixen), Old English fǀd and fƝdan (Modern English food and to feed), Old English tǀþ and tƝþ (Modern English tooth and teeth), Old English man and menn (Modern English man and men), and others. The following scheme is used to show directionality of i-umlaut:

Diachronic Synergetics

59

i: ĸ––––––––– y: ĸ––––––––––––––––––– u: i yĸ––––––––––––––––––u e: ĸ––––––oe: ĸ––––––––––––––o: eĸ–oe ĸ––––––––––––––––– o æ: ĸ––––––––––––––––––––a: æ ĸ–––––––––––––––––a Fig. 3.1 Directionality of qualitative changes (i-umlaut)

Needless to say, phonetic changes did not take place simultaneously or regularly on different territories of the British Isles. Thus, the systems of vowels of northern and southern dialects of the 12th and early 13th centuries were slightly different, for in southern dialects the long vowel [a:] was absent, while in the northern dialects the long vowel [‫ܧ‬:] was missing (see Fig. 3.2 below): Southern dialects i: i u u: e: e o o: İ: ‫ܧ‬: a

Northern dialects i: i u u: e: e o o: İ: a: a

Fig. 3.2 Differences in the systems of vowels in Middle English northern and southern dialects (taken from [94: 47]).

The 13th century witnessed quantitative changes of vowels, namely lengthening of the short low [a] and middle [e] and [o] in the initial open syllable of two-syllabic words, as in: OE [a] > MidE [a:]: nama [nama] > nƗme [namԥ] > [na:mԥ]; OE [e] > MidE [İ:]: mete [mete] > mete [mİ:te] > [mİ:tԥ]; OE [o] > MidE [‫ܧ‬:]: nosu [nosu] > nose [nosԥ] > [no:zԥ]. The short high [i] and [u] became longer as well and developed into [e:] and [o:] correspondingly. Examples: OE [i] > MidE [e:]: wicu [wiku] > [wikԥ] > weeke [we:kԥ]; OE [u] > MidE [o:]: wudu [wudu] > [wudԥ] > wode [wo:dԥ]. The phonetic process of lengthening vowels in open syllables can be graphically represented as follows:

Chapter Three

60

Southern dialects i: i u u: e: e o o: İ: ‫ܧ‬: ɚ: ĸ a

Northern dialects i: i u u: e: e o o: İ: ‫ܧ‬: a: ĸa

Fig. 3.3 Quantitative changes of vowels (lengthening in open syllables) in southern and northern dialects in the 13th c. (taken from [94: 48]).

The scheme shows identical shifts of vowels as a result of the quantitative changes in southern and northern dialects. This fact leads to an idea of a directed chainlike mode of changes in the phonetic space of the language system. In my opinion, the phonetic space of a certain language system has a (potentially limited) number of possible trajectories of movement, so to speak, ‘channels’ of changes, which keep the system from chaotic rushing or uncontrolled positional skipping. Another important consequence of the phenomenon of lengthening in an open syllable is the appearance of ‘missing’ phonemes in the dialects under consideration (in Fig. 3.3 they are underlined). The two territorially remote dialect areas ‘levelled’ their systems of vowels, which showed that the phonetic system of English was approaching the state of equilibrium. However, equilibrium does not mean ‘immobility’. It is rather a dynamic stability when the system suffers insignificant fluctuations. The phonetic system of any language is subject to endless impacts from external factors. Sometimes, single changes within a system are able to generate a chainlike restructuring of the whole system. A vivid example of gradual changes is represented by the phenomenon of the Great Vowel Shift, which began in approximately the 15th century and lasted for at least centuries. Most scientists believe that on the whole this phonetic process ended in the 17th century. However, there exists a view point that the Great Vowel Shift is still going on at present [see, for example: 93: 195, 212]. The Great Vowel Shift involved changes in the quality of all the long vowels. Long vowels became narrowed, while long [i:] and [i:] developed into diphthongs. The table below that is based on the one in [13] shows the series of changes under consideration.

Diachronic Synergetics

61

Table 3.4 The Great Vowel Shift in English (15th – 17th c) Vowels Front vowels Middle vowels Back vowels

MidE ࠁ Early MnE /i:/ > /ii/> /ei/ > /æi/> /ai/ /e:/ > /æ:/ > /İ:/ > /i:/ /æ:/ /a:/> /æ:/ > /İ:/ > /e:/ > /u:/ /o:/ /au/

MnE ĺ /ai/ ĺ /i:/ ĺ e:/ĺ/i:/ ĺ /e:/ ĺ /au/ ĺ /u:/ ĺ /o:/

These changes in pronunciation were not followed by changes in writing, because by that time spelling had already been established. In terms of synergetics, orthography as an open dynamic system of language had reached equilibrium long before pronunciation of words became stabilised, hence the discrepancy between the reading and writing of modern words. In the Early Modern English period, new diphthongs appeared as a result of vocalisation of [r] at the end of a word and before a consonant (because a vowel could hardly have been narrowed before [r]). Cf. moor [mo:r] > [muԥ], but moon [mo:n] > [mu:n]. This phonetic process, as well as the Great Vowel Shift, represents a gradual type of revolutionary change within the given system. The gradual character of the appearance of new diphthongs due to the vocalisation of [r] is seen from the examples below: [e:] > [i:] > [iԥ], e.g. here, steer; [İ:] > [e:] > [İԥ], e.g. wear, bear; [İ:] > [e:] > [iԥ], e.g. clear, fear; [a:] > [ei] > [İԥ], e.g. care, fare; [o:] > [u:] > [uԥ], e.g. poor, moor. The quantitative changes of vowels in Middle English and Early Modern English (including the lengthening of the short vowels a and o before [f], [ș], [s], [œ], [tœ] and the shortening of the long Ɲ and ǀ before combinations of consonants, in the third last syllable, and in monosyllabic words, etc.) are not occasional but determined by certain tendencies of development of short and long vowels [see e.g. 6; 7]. The fact that certain tendencies do exist in the change of the quality and/or quantity of the sound supports my suggestion that all phonetic changes occur within the certain space of states of the language system.

62

Chapter Three

I think that the space of states of the phonetic system of language is limited by physiological peculiarities of sound production. The above mentioned cyclic character in the shift of vowels supports my view that the possible ways of changing within the system are numerous, but not infinite. The suggested notion of the space of states of the phonetic system helps us to understand the existence of transition stages, on the one hand, and the absence of any skipping of intermediate stages, on the other. So far, the main historical changes within vowels in stressed syllables (which were also root morphemes) have been dealt with. Now let us outline the principal changes of vowels in unstressed syllables. A peculiarity of Old English (as compared, for instance, with OHG) was that in unstressed syllables there were no long vowels (they had been shortened) or diphthongs (they had become monophthongs). Short vowels in unstressed syllables partially weakened: æ > e; i > e; u > o >a. Sometimes unstressed vowels e, æ, o were used interchangeably, and later they reduced to the weak ‫ۑ‬. At the end of a two-syllable word after a long stressed root syllable, vowels would reduce and be lost. Short vowels in the position of being after a long stressed syllable and before an unstressed syllable became syncopated, as in: OE mægden «maiden» (Cf OHG magatƯn); Genitive Singular hƝafdes from Nominative hƝafod «head»; Genitive micles from Nominative micel «much». The development of new unstressed vowels, as I see it, was of compensating character, for they appeared before the vowels (usually r and l) after which final vowels were usually lost. For example: OE winter (Cf. Goth. wintrus); OE hungor (Cf. OIcl. hungr). This tendency was going on in Middle English, which is shown in the forms burowe, burewe, borough (< OE burg, MnE borough); swalowe, swalewe (< Angl. swalwe, MnE swallow).

Diachronic Synergetics

63

Obviously, the weakening and subsequent loss of vowels in unstressed positions brought about an asymmetry in the phonetic system of language, which might have led the system to non-equilibrium. To gain stability, the language as a synergetic system sets off mechanisms of self-organisation, which in our case is the compensating development of vowels in pre-final position (i.e. before the final consonant of a word). This kind of restructuring not only stabilises the system but also contributes to the appearance of new qualities in the system. On the whole, the renewed system evolves to equilibrium. In Middle English, vowels in unstressed syllables went on weakening, and the final ɚ, ɨ, u gradually reduced to e [ԥ]. As Hans Hock rightfully points out, “Word-final position is as vulnerable an environment for vowels as it is for consonants and consonant clusters” [86: 92]. Such a tendency can be explained on the basis of the word energy structure which is characterised by an ascending-descending energy pattern. The end of a word or a word-combination is far less tensed when compared with its initial syllable(s) [47]. Tradition has it that in the 12th century the final -e is beginning to disappear, which is reflected both in writing and rhyming. It is well known that in the works by Geoffrey Chaucer (the 14th century) the final -e could be either read or not, depending upon the rhythmic organizsation of the verse. In his ‘The Canterbury Tales’ one can come across the possessive pronoun ‘mine’ that is read differently within the same line, as in: .

‘Mine hert is also mouled as mine heeres’ [“The Reeve’s Prologue”, line 16], ‘my heart is mouldy (=aged) as my hair’, where, in the combination ‘mine hert’, it is pronounced as [mi:n], i.e. without the final sound; however, in the combination ‘mine heeres’, it is read: [‘mi:nԥ]. The final silent -e was possibly omitted, which, in its turn, led to a variety of spelling forms. Thus, in ‘The Canterbury Tales’ we come across the following pairs of words: wold – wolde: And gladly wold he lern and gladly teeche [The General Prologue, l. 308]. She was so charitable and so pitous She wolde weep if that she saw a mous

64

Chapter Three

Caught in a trap, if it were deed or bledde [ibidem, lines 143 –145]; coud – coude: He coud in litel thing have suffisaunce [ibidem, line 490]; He moste preech and well affile his tonge To winne silver, as he full well coude – Therefore he song the murrierly and loude [ibidem, ll. 712 –714]; Short was his gown, with sleeves long and wide. Well coud he sit on horse and faire ride. He coude songes make, and well endite [ibidem, lines 93 – 95]. tell – telle: By God, I hope I shall you tell a thing That shall by reson been at your liking! For though myself be a full vicious man, A moral tale yet I you telle can [The Pardoner’s Prologue, l. 129 –132]. Obviously, Geoffrey Chaucer (although quite unaware of it) ‘caught’ the instability phase of the phonetic system of the English language of his time and reflected it in his poems. At the beginning of the Middle English period the suffix of abstract nouns still retained its two Old English forms with a dialectal difference, -nis(se) and -nes(se). However, language, being a synergetic system, tends not only to avoid any excess in elements but also to dissipate the unnecessary. Unification and standardisation of orthographic norms ousted parallel means of expression, and only one form of a few (here -nes(se), Modern English -ness) has survived. The choice of the form -nes(se), and not -nis(se), was not determined by any factors. From a synergetic view point, the development and functioning of an evolving open system is described by a number of variables in an equation. These variables contribute to a wide choice of possible ways of further development of the given synergetic system. The same is true with regard to language as an open developing system. Any human language represents a complex system with a number of variables ‘working’ on its different levels and within its numerous subsystems. It is their ‘work’ that is responsible for alternatives of evolution.

Diachronic Synergetics

65

Historical changes within consonants The Old English phonetic system included the following consonants: x x x x x x x

bilabial: [p], [b], [m], [w]; labiodentals: [f], [v]; interdental: [ș], [ð]; dental : [t], [d], [n], [s], [z]; mediolingual: [k’], [g’], [x’], [j]; backlingual: [k], [g], [ƾ], [Ȗ], [x], [r], [l]; pharyngeal: [h].

A peculiar characteristic of the consonant system in Old English was the phenomenon of gemination – lengthening of consonants as a result of the assimilation of [j] with the preceding consonant. Hence comes the division of Old English consonants and Middle English consonants into short and long ones depending upon the quantity of the sound: [pp], [bb], [tt], [dd], [gg], [g’g’], [kk], [k’k’], [ff], [șș], [ss], [ȤȤ], [Ȥ’Ȥ’], [ll], [rr], [mm], [nn]. Geminates are found in the intervocalic position, e.g. OE sittan < *setjanan, Goth. satjan, OIcel. sitia «to sit»; OE tellan < *taljanan, OIcel. telia «to tell». In writing, the contrast between short and long consonants was marked by doubling the corresponding letters. This unique system of spelling was developed and used by monk Orm in his poem called «The Ormulum» (c. 1200). Here is an extract from this piece with a word-for-word translation: Nu wile icc here shæwenn Ɂuw; (Now want I here to show/tell you) Off ure laffdiɁ marɁe. (Of our Lady Mary) Off – hu Ɂho barr Þe laferrd crist; (of – how she gave birth to Lord Crist) Att hire rihhte time. (at her right time)

66

Chapter Three

Swa Þatt Ɂho Þohh Þæraffterr wass; (So that she was thought after that) AɁɁ maɁɁdenn Þweorrt njt clene! (Always Maiden completely pure!) (Ormulum: Homily vii, l. 3264 – 3269). At the end of the Middle English Period, doubled consonants were simplified, which was reflected in the pronunciation and spelling of the words. Another interesting fact is that in Old English there existed palatal consonants which became affricates in Middle English: voiceless [tœ] and voiced [d‫]ڻ‬. This process is known as assibilation. Examples: OE ɫild [k’i:ld] > MidE child [tœi:ld] > MnE child [tœald]; OE scip [sk’p] > MidE scip, ship [œip] > MnE ship [œp]. Assibilation is worth noting here because, in the result of this process, the mediolingual sounds [k’], [k’k’], [g’], [g’g’] ‘moved’ forward and became fronted. Obviously, the ‘forward’ movement for consonants and the ‘forward-and-up’ movement for vowels are the main trajectories of phonetic changes within the space of states of this subsystem of the English language. One more phonetic phenomenon in Old English should be mentioned here, namely metathesis, which was realised in replacing the letter r and the corresponding sound, which gave Þirda and Þridda «third»; irnan, yrnan and rinnan, «to run». In Modern English, it is observed within three and third. The phonetic essence of metathesis is not at all disclosed. Some scholars connect it with certain slips of the tongue, while others think that this process is unavoidable in borrowing new words when the order of sounds is far more difficult for a recipient than their quality and/or quantity. The synergetic paradigm enables us to understand metathesis as the system’s fluctuation while in the phase shift, i.e. in the stage of transition towards a new stable state of the given system. The alternatives that appear (here: r before a vowel // r after a vowel) can be regarded as certain attractors to which the system is being drawn now and then. The phonetic processes of assimilation, of assibilation, and those of metathesis represent the phase micro-spaces of the phonetic system of language. Within these spaces the corresponding language units follow definite trajectories (as in the case of the vowel shift or the assibilation of

Diachronic Synergetics

67

consonants). Any chaotic or irregular movements ‘aside’ are hardly possible, for the trajectories direct the system into the definite route. At the same time, the system, which is dynamic, is also unstable because of the inherent asymmetry. Dynamism and non-equilibrium enable the system to move from one attractor to another. Here the function of attractors is performed by variants of phonemes, combinations of phonemes, etc., from which the system is to choose. However, the choice made is usually both inexplicable and unpredictable. Being dynamic, phase states of a system sooner or later shift and change one another, thus forming the basis for a cyclic mode of the development of the given system. Such a shift of the states at the micro-levels of the system accounts for the following phonetic change: [˜] ĺ [d], [d] ĺ [˜]. Researchers have noticed that the Old English sound [˜] before m, n, l, r changed into [d] in early Middle English. This gave MidE broder «brother» (