The Category of Opposition and its Linguistic Nature
Dildora Abdullayeva
Tashkent University of Applied Sciences, Gavhar Str. 1, Tashkent 100149, Uzbekistan
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10439510
Keywords:
Contradiction category, logical and philosophical aspect, antonymy, lexical context, semantic valence, lexical-
semantic paradigms,
complementary antonym, contradictory antonyms.
Abstract:
The article discusses the logical and philosophical aspect of the opposition category, its linguistic nature, the
interpretations of the semantic opposition category given by Uzbek and Russian linguists, and their controversial
issues. In addition, the role of semantic opposition in the lexical system of the language, its connection with other
lexical-semantic relations is studied.
1 INTRODUCTION
It is known that the relationships between
things, events, processes, etc. are as real as the things,
events, and processes themselves [20]. Opposition is
characterized as the highest manifestation of such
relations. As language, as one of the living forms of
existence, reflects the phenomena of existence, the
role of the category of opposition in language is
incomparable. It provides an important semantic-
systemic relation of language units. The phenomenon
of antonymy is mainly recognized as a linguistic
representative of the category of opposition.
There has always been a debate among
linguists about the logical and linguistic nature of
antonymy, that is, whether antonymy is a linguistic
phenomenon or a purely logical phenomenon. Many
linguists put more emphasis on the logical aspect of
this category. In particular, L.A.Novikov analyzes
several types of antonymy according to its logical
aspect, such as contrarian (based on gradual relations),
complementary (based on contradictory relations),
conversive and vector [24]. V.A. Mikhaylov uses the
terms qualitative (on the basis of gradual relations) and
complementary (on the basis of binary (double)
relations) in this regard [19].
As time passed, the linguistic interpretation
of the phenomenon of antonymy became more
widespread. The initial works were mainly devoted to
determining the nature of this phenomenon, but later
the following issues related to antonymy began to
emerge as an object of study: the interaction of
antonymy with other phenomena in the lexical system,
in particular, the categories of synonymy and
polysemy, antonymic relations in derivational
paradigms, specific antonymy interpretation within
the word group and antonymy of grammatical units,
etc. In addition, the study of antonymy in various
aspects began to appear, for example: the function of
antonyms in scientific discourse, their role in literary
and publicity texts [7,16,17,25], in religious
discourse[1], their relationship to the phenomenon of
enantiosemy[18],
paradigmatic
features
of
antonyms[8],
the
linguocognitive
aspect
of
antonyms[9], phonosemantic features of opposite-
meaning lexemes[34], comparative-semantic analysis
of antonyms in different languages[14], etc.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The methodological basis of this article is the
laws of dialectical philosophy about unity and conflict
opposites, unity of form and content, generality and
particularity. The methods of description, comparison,
component analysis, and linguopoetic analysis were
used in the work.
In order to reveal the linguistic nature of the
category of opposition, the article analyzed many
scientific literatures conducted in Russian and Uzbek
linguistics.
The phenomenon of antonymy in Uzbek
linguistics was initially interpreted in some articles,
textbooks and scientific works [22] based on different
opinions. In particular, S.Mutallibov’s article
"Antonyms" is one of the first works devoted to the
study of antonyms in the Uzbek language. This article
analyzes the antonymic paradigms in the Uzbek
language of the 11th century. But in this case, we
observe that the linguist in some places includes words
that do not meet the requirements of antonyms. For
example, he distinguishes between the words
fire
and
water
as antonyms. A similar situation can be found in
S.Usmonov’s scientific views. In his article
"Antonyms", types of antonymy are distinguished
such as "full" and "half". If the linguist takes pairs like
high - low, night - day
as "full antonyms", he includes
words such as
chol (old man) – kampir (old woman),
fire - water
among "half antonyms". In addition,
S.Usmanov also pays attention to the structural
classification of antonyms such as "same root" and
"different root". In this case, the antonyms of
hearty -
heartless
are interpreted as having one root, and the
antonyms of
brave - coward, wise - stupid
are
interpreted as antonyms with different roots. In the
article, the author divided antonyms into ten parts
according to the types of meaning. To explain the
existence of similar antonyms (homo antonyms) in the
Uzbek language, the verbs to ride and fall are given as
examples. In this work, the phenomenon of language
is mixed with the phenomenon of speech, as well as
the phenomena of language itself. In particular, there
are places where linguistic phenomena such as
antonymy and correlation, antonymy and negation are
mixed. Nevertheless, this article is valuable as it is the
first major theoretical article devoted to antonyms in
Uzbek linguistics.
LOGICAL AND PHILOSOFICAL
ASPECTS OF THE CATEGORY OF
OPPOSITION
In the study of the category of opposition, it
is necessary to refer to its logical and philosophical
aspect. From a philosophical point of view, opposition
is the manifestation of similarity and difference as a
phenomenon. On the one hand, the opposition shows
the difference of one existence to the last limit, on the
other hand, as two sides of the same phenomenon, it
expresses not only the difference, but also the
commonality.
Opposition is characterized as a category that
has attracted the attention of philosophers since
ancient times. This category has been interpreted
differently in the scientific views of philosophers such
as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Protagoras, Democritus.
For example, Heraclitus thinks that opposites are
related to each other on the basis of one basis, while
Parmenides and Empedocles “separated the following
dilemmas: unity and plurality, static and dynamic, full
and empty, visible and invisible. Democritus
emphasized that the opposition has a relative
character” [9]. Plato reflects on the transmissibility of
opposites, their symmetry and equality. Aristotle’s
scientific views on contradiction are especially
noteworthy. T.F.Chursunova, assessing Aristotle’s
philosophical views, says: “The study of antonymy
began with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle”
[12] says that the types of contradictions under the
terms of contradiction and complementarity were
already distinguished by Aristotle at that time[12].
These scientific views of the linguist have their basis,
because Aristotle made the following points in his
work "Categories": "If the opposition is such that,
according to the quality given to them by nature, it is
definitely required that one of them exists, then there
is no middle ground in such an opposition. If one of
these (of the two) does not necessarily exist, there is
certainly some middle ground between such an
opposition. For example,
disease
and
health
exist in
the div of a living organism. Equally, the opposite of
odd
and
even
can be cited, one of these must exist in
any situation, any number is either odd or even, and
there is no intermediate state between them: neither
sickness
and
health
, nor between
odd
and
even
. While
one side of the opposition does not necessarily exist in
every situation, in such a case there may be something
intermediate between them; for example,
white
and
black
are characteristic of an object, but an object does
not necessarily have one of these, because not every
object is either white or black. Aristotle also says that
opposites can be transferred to each other: "Indeed,
health
can become
sick
,
white
can turn into
black
,
cold
can turn into
heat
, and in the same way
good
can be
produced from
bad
and
bad
can be produced from
good
." [3]. After that, Aristotle also dwells on the
"next two ways of opposing each other": deprivation
and possession, or affirmation and denial. Deprivation
and possession are taken in relation to one event. For
example,
sight
and
blindness
are defined in relation to
the eye, and in general, whatever a sign embodies in
nature, one can talk about deprivation and possession.
By deprivation we mean that an event does not have
an aspect that should be given by nature. The
opposition of deprivation and possession is in relation
to each other. Aristotle says that negation and
affirmation do not correspond to any of the above: in
relation, nor in deprivation and possession, one sign
does not have to be true and the other false [3].
In this way, it would not be a mistake to say
that Aristotle laid the foundation for phenomena that
were later interpreted in science under the name of
contrary, contradiction and complementarity. In
formal logic, opinions are put forward about the
existence of these forms of contradiction. For
example, V.A.Mikhaylov, expressing his opinion on
contrary and contradiction, emphasizes that contrary is
a contradiction in a narrow sense, and contradiction
can express opposition in a broad sense [20].
In linguistics, in this regard, mainly the manifestations
of contrarian and complementary opposition are
noteworthy. They are interpreted as follows: Contrary
(from Latin contrarious - opposite) content is
expressed as follows: between "X" and "Y" there is a
third concept - "Z". For example, like
black
and
white.
Between these there is a third character (eg: gray) that
does not belong to either. Complementary (from the
Latin complemented - to fill) resistance is shown in the
form of "X" and "Y". In this type of opposition, the
components completely negate each other, there is no
place for an intermediate concept between them. For
example, truth – lie. In this case, the denial of one
confirms the other: it is not true, so it is false or vice
versa.
Asmus’s scientific views are also based on
the above points, in addition, he scientifically
substantiates that at the core of the contradictory
contradiction lies the law of the exclusion of the third:
"The contradictory opposition is based on the denial of
one, which confirms the other... Said two - affirmation
and negation - one truth, the other must be false" [4].
But not every denial creates such a contradiction. For
example,
young – not young
, in this case it is
impossible to talk about the opposite, because not
young does not mean old.
The linguist E.N.Chernega, referring to
Aristotle’s services in the formation of the theory of
opposition, adds the following: “It was Aristotle who
summarized the issues related to the concept of
opposition in ancient philosophy and drew a
conclusion. Its service is that it distinguishes not only
contradictions, but also the contradictory character of
the surrounding existence” [9].
M.N.Chupanovskaya emphasizes Hegel’s
work more. The linguist says, "The model of
opposition that arose in ancient times later found its
development in various philosophical systems. But its
relatively complete view is reflected in Hegel’s
works... Hegel understands opposition as an inner
negation [18].
B. Spinoza in the work "Ethics" makes good
use of opposition to reveal the nature of emotions and
explains their expression by opposing words:
“Emotions arise due to the increase or decrease of
desire. If the desire to live (to exist) is realized at a
higher level, a person experiences a feeling of joy. On
the contrary, if a person knows that the possibility of
existence has decreased, he will be possessed by a
feeling of sadness” [29]. The philosopher justifies his
approach to events on the basis of contrast through the
following thought: “To determine is to oppose” [20].
PSYCHOLINGUISTIC
ASPECTS OF THE CATEGORY OF
OPPOSITION
Another important aspect in the definition of
the contrast category is its psycholinguistic aspect.
Psychologists put forward the view that the formation
of any concept, differentiating the characteristics of
various objects and phenomena and comparing them
with each other, determining their common aspects is
carried out on the basis of the imagination in our
thinking. For example, our perception of
light,
small,
wide
marks enable us to identify
heavy, large, narrow
marks. G.P. Melnikov emphasizes that the opposition
in the mind is realized on the basis of language tools,
that is, antonymic language units play the main role in
this case[19].
It is worth saying that the existence of the
category of opposition occurs not only in the way of
perception of the phenomena of objective existence,
but also as a product of the world of thought.
"Objective differences between objects, properties,
and relations are among the antonyms expressing
objective opposition, based on subjective thinking, on
the basis of similarity with objective opposition, and
from the standard of evaluation of this or that fact
established in society, specific life requirements,
centuries-old customs and traditions. Example,
beautiful - ugly, real - fake
..." [22].
E.N.Miller asserts that the objective
differences between objects, features, relations are
defined in our thinking subjectively, on the basis of
similarity with objective opposition and based on the
standard of evaluation of one or another fact
established in society, based on specific life
requirements, centuries-old customs and traditions
[2;20]. For example,
big - small
are universally
recognized antonyms, but nevertheless, it can be said
that what they mean is not an absolute opposite. In
existence, the small sign can be used for
hedgehogs,
kittens,
and
flies
, and the large sign can be used for
elephants, calves,
and
eagles
. But the biggest
hedgehog
is smaller than the smallest
elephant
, etc.
The same object can be assessed by the same person at
different times as big in one place and small in another
[21]. The system of antonymic opposition is not
completely consistent in different languages, which is
determined by geographical, social and other external
factors, as well as by the laws of the system of
consciousness. The integration of science, the
development of interdisciplinary relations is
noteworthy as it is a characteristic aspect of scientific
research conducted at the current stage. Including,
linguistics cannot develop without psychology and its
experiments, without extensive biological information
on the way of this integration. Psycholinguistics
studies the occurrence and perception of speech
situations and their interaction with language
structure. Therefore, in order to get deeper into the
essence of antonymy as a linguistic category, it is
necessary to study the psycholinguistic factor of
associative (interconnected, reminiscent of each other)
relationships of opposite meanings. The principle of
association is the universality of all mental processes,
including higher forms of mental activity. In this case,
two or more under the term association.
The connection between psychic phenomena
(sensation, perception, imagination, thought, image,
etc.) manifested reflexively is understood; in the
association, the actualization of one member in certain
conditions leads to the manifestation of another.
Associations based on similarity, dependence and
contrast are the main forms of psychological
association. On the basis of contrast association, it is
understood the reflection and combination of images
that have a sign of opposition in thinking (memory).
Thus, the opposition is situated in our thinking as an
essential difference in connection, each of which can
give an impression of the other.
LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF
THE CATEGORY OF OPPOSITION
The phenomenon of opposition is interpreted
in linguistics mainly under the name of antonymy.
Antonymic relationship is one of the most complex
phenomena in language and has always attracted the
attention of linguists. As a result of the work done, a
system of certain criteria was formed for defining this
event. These criteria are determined on two levels:
paradigmatic and syntagmatic.
As a rule, paradigmatic relations are
associated with language features, while syntagmatic
features are characterized by speech. Both of these
aspects are important for language units and ensure the
integrity of the language in different aspects.
In the paradigmatic plan, the most important
feature of antonyms is their expression of semantic
opposition. This aspect has always been the main
factor in defining antonyms. Antonyms are words that
semantically contradict their common sign and at the
same time are located at two peaks of a certain lexical-
semantic paradigm. They are opposite, but related
words, different in appearance.
M.D. Lesnik says: "…the state of antonymy
should be between one type of events that are in a
certain relationship, connection. “
Bad - good, old -
new
- these are interconnected, correlative concepts,
one cannot be understood without the other” he
admits. [15]. In this regard, D.N. Shmelev’s opinion
is particularly noteworthy: "In antonymic opposition,
each member is defined as a lexical-semantic unit in
the language by its antonymic pair. The meaning of
"
big
" exists as well as the meaning of "
small
" and,
conversely, both words in their basic meaning require
each other and depend on the other [27]. Following L.
Elmslev, D.N. Shmelev calls this semantic connection
complementarity.
The veracity of this opinion can be proven in
the explanation of antonyms in dictionaries, first of all,
according to the principle of using their opposite. A
comparative analysis of the definitions of antonyms in
dictionaries fully proves that they are interconnected
and mutually demanding concepts. Despite all the
progress made in the field of antonymy, this
phenomenon has many controversial, unexplored
aspects. For example, there are controversial opinions
among linguists about whether gendered words are
antonyms or not. Some sources emphasize
that male-
female
correlative pairs cannot express an antonymic
relationship, while others include such pairs as
antonyms. For example, S.Usmanov considers pairs of
husband-wife, sister-sister, boy-girl
types as "semi-
antonyms"[33], so he still includes them among
antonyms. We cite the scientific views of L.A.Novikov
and Y.D.Apresyan as an example of conflicting
opinions on this issue:
L.A.Novikov considers the type of words
male —
female, husband — wife
to be complementary
antonyms: "Non-gradual opposition is antonyms
expressing complementarity (
married — single, alive
— dead, wet — dry, sighted — blind, male - female,
husband - wife
)». [27].
Yu.D.Apresyan admits that the negation of the sign
"male" is not equal to "female", each gender has its
own physiological and anatomical signs. He draws the
following conclusion on this issue: "Either the words
denoting gender should be removed from the
antonyms, or a completely new type of antonymy
should be distinguished, but in this case, it will be
difficult to give a general description of antonyms"[2].
We also approve the scientific views of
Yu.D.Apresyan. Because antonymy is specific only to
the category of sign (of course, sign in this place is
broad), and correlative words consist mainly of nouns
with concrete semantics. In their semes, the primary
semes are not ‘signs’, but ‘concrete objects’, and they
contradict each other with the known, secondary
semes of ‘signs’. For example: aka(older brother)-uka
(younger brother) pair cannot be an example of an
antonymic relationship, because an antonym should be
a unit representing a sign in relation to a certain
phenomenon, but the words aka(older brother)-uka
(younger brother) themselves represent the event, and
the sign is only a certain part of sememes. Generally
speaking, these words do not have the potential of
antonyms.
Yu.D. Apresyan emphasizes the opposite
opinion. As another aspect that caused discussions in
the early works on antonymy, it is possible to mention
the issue of considering partite and part less forms of
verbs as antonyms. For example:
came – did not come
.
In our opinion, participle in verbs cannot be an
antonymic case anyway. First, in any case, we are not
studying opposition as a logical category, but as a way
of expressing it in linguistic units. As a linguistic
phenomenon, antonyms should be separate lexemes
that have opposite meanings to each other and exist in
the language.
Came – did not come
are two forms of
the same word in the language.
M.I. Sidorenko puts forward the opinion that
"words expressing a specific concept are not
considered antonyms if they are characteristic of
different styles or different emotional-expressive
colors"[31]. V. A. Ivanova develops this idea and says
that "an antonymic series consisting of two words
should naturally have the same stylistic color." At this
point, the linguist emphasizes that if stylistic color is
one of the main differential signs for synonyms, this
aspect must be integral in antonyms, because
antonyms are used together and must be at the same
stylistic stage in order to ensure the stylistic
compatibility of the text. According to him, "opposite
words characteristic of different speech styles cannot
form an antonymic series, because they cannot
systematically appear in the same antonymic context."
It should be said that to approach the semantic
opposition between lexical units from this position is
to limit the linguistic position of the phenomenon.
CONCLUSIONS
The category of opposition is one of the main
criteria in existence. The role of the category of
opposition in the understanding of the world is
incomparable. The study of any phenomenon from a
philosophical point of view sooner or later leads to an
appeal to their opposite side. Nothing is more
important in uncovering the essence of phenomena
than the use of their opposites. Opposition occurs not
only in the way of the perception of the phenomena of
objective existence, but also as a result of thinking.
Therefore, in order to fully illuminate the linguistic
nature of this phenomenon, we will also need to study
its logical-philosophical and psychological character.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The theoretical conclusions summarized in this study
served to clarify the nature of lexical semantic
relations in the language system. At the moment, the
results of the article are important in teaching such
courses as "Lexicology", "Semasiology", "Stylistics",
"Linguistic analysis of artistic text", creating
textbooks, teaching-methodical manuals, scientific
pamphlets. The main results and materials of the
article are recommended to be widely used for
students of Uzbek philology faculties of higher
educational institutions and in lexicology and
semasiology classes held in graduate courses.
REFERENCES
1.
Anikina N.N. Antonymy as a component of the
religious linguistic picture of the world // III
International. Baudouin readings. – Kazan:
Kazan. univ., 2006.
2.
Apresyan
Yu.
D.
Lexical
semantics.
Synonymous means of language. – M.: Nauka,
1974
3.
Aristotle. Categories.
4.
Asmus V. F. Immanuel Kant. – M.: Nauka, 1973.
– P. 290
5.
1987.
6.
Borovkov A., Marufov Z. and others. Modern
Uzbek language textbook, 1970. - P. 39; Modern
Uzbek literary language, volume I. - Tashkent,
1966. - P. 144-150;
7.
Dmitriev A.L. Antonyms and poems by A.A.
Akhmatovoy // Russian language and school.
1981. – No. 3. - S. 73-78;
8.
Dyundik L.G. Some features of the functioning
of antonyms in the light of the integrative
approach to the analysis of language // Linguistic
paradigms and linguodidactics: Mater. VIII intl.
scientific - practical Conf. – Irkutsk, 2003. – P.
170-176.
9.
Chernega E.N. Antonyms in the linguistic and
linguocognitive aspect (based on the speech of
primary schoolchildren): Diss. ...cand. Philol.
Sci. – M., 2005. – P. 25
10.
Chervonozhka V.S. Enantiosemy in the current
Bulgarian
language:
Author’s
abstract.
dissertation candidate. philological sciences –
Kiev, 2002.
11.
Chupanovskaya
M.N.
Representation
of
opposition in the semantics of derived antonyms:
Author’s abstract. diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. –
Novosibirsk, 2007. – P. 14.
12.
Chursunova T.F. Antonymy in nominal word
formation of the German language: Diss... cand.
Philol. Sci. –Samara, 2004. – P. 10
13.
Ishaev A. Etudes on cognate antonyms // Uzbek
language and literature. 1967, - No. 1. - B. 16;
14.
Karsanova E.V. Structural and semantic analysis
of the lexemes “white” / “black” (based on the
material of English, German, Ossetian, Russian
and French languages): Diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci.
– M., 2003.
15.
Lesnik M.D. On the antonymity of the adjectives
big, small, small and the sphere of their use in the
modern Russian literary language // Uchen. Zap.
LSU. – No. 161, series philol. Sciences, vol. 18.
– L., 1952. – P. 84.
16.
Makarova
E.A.
Interparticular
feature
nomination in a literary text. – Irkutsk: Irkutsk.
state ling. University, 2001. – No. 5. – pp. 70-78.
17.
Matveev B.I. Visual and expressive capabilities
of antonyms // Russian literature. 2000. – No. 6.
– P.69-72;
18.
Melikyan V. Yu. “Internal antonymy” and ways
of expressing it in language // Russian language
at school, 1998. – No. 2. – P.82-88;
19.
Melnikov G.P. On the types of dualism of a
linguistic sign // Philological Sciences. 1971. –
No. 5. – P. 65
20.
Mikhailov V.A. Genesis of antonymic
oppositions (antonymy and negation). Textbook
allowance – L., 1987.– P.8.
21.
Miller E.N. Antonyms in vocabulary and
phraseology (based on the material of German
and Russian languages). - Alma-Ata: Nauka,
1978.
22.
Miller E.N. Antonymy of nominative units in
modern German: Textbook. special course
manual. – Kuibyshev: KSPI, 1985. – P. 20
23.
Mutallibov S. Antonyms // Soviet school. 1955. -
No. 4. - B. 28-30;
24.
Novikov L. A. Antonymy in Russian. M.:
Moscow. University, 1973.
25.
Rahmatullaev Sh. Some issues of Uzbek
phraseology. - Tashkent: Science, 1966. - P. 201-
209;
26.
Selina R.V. Potential antonyms are the lexical
basis of speech contrast (Text as a linguistic
category and problems of its study at school). –
Irkutsk, 1998. - P. 100-106;
27.
Shmelev D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of
vocabulary (based on the Russian language). –
M.: Nauka, 1973. – P.142
28.
Shoabdurahmonov Sh., Askarova M., Hojiev A.,
Rasulov I., Doniyorov Kh. Modern Uzbek
literary language. Part 1. - Tashkent: Teacher,
1980. - B. 118-120.
29.
Spinoza B. Ethics.
30.
Spinoza B. Selected Works. Volume 2. – M.:
Political
literature,
1957.
–
P.
508.
31.
Sidorenko M.I. Antonymy and expressive-
stylistic belonging of words / Words to the
lexical-semantic system of language. – L., 1972.
– P. 113.
32.
Tursunov U., Mukhtorov J., Rahmatullaev Sh.
Modern Uzbek literary language. - Tashkent,
1965. - B. 142-145;
33.
Usmanov S. Antonyms // Problems of the Uzbek
language and literature. 1958. - No. 2. - B. 33-40;
34.
Vasilyeva E.A. Phonosemantic characteristics of
the main lexical categories: antonymy and
synonymy: Diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. – M., 2004.
