Theoretical Proposal of Hybrid Analysis of Lexical Unit: Light Robert Boroch Department of Intercultural Studies in Central-Eastern Europe Faculty of Applied Linguistics Warsaw University Warsaw, Poland rboroch@uw.edu.pl Abstract The main purpose of this paper is not to create another detailed lexical definition of light in accordance to the principles of theory, but rather to examine the methodology as well as the way of defining the light as a lexical unit by scholars (Dobaczewski 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b; Dyszak 1999a, 1999b). I argue that a semantic deposit (SD) domain of lexical unit light could be understood only if supplemented with semantic units that possess a high-abstractive meaning value organized in Semantic Net structure (Semantic Net hereinafter referred to as SN). Therefore, lexical unit light cannot be defined as a property Keywords A unit, Qs system, semantic primitives, Semantic Deposit (SD), Semantic Net structure (SN). I. INTRODUCTION A introduced by A. Wierzbicka (Wierzbicka, 1972) as Natural Semantic Metalanguage (hereinafter referred to as NSM) investigates elementary explanation of terms that could be used to describe other more complex terms (also concepts). Still, the only stipulation is that the terms classified as semantic primitives cannot be elucidated by other terms. It means that semantic primitives on a particular level of semantic analysis are obscure units with the unknown sense in its stratum that I will call a semantic deposit (Semantic Deposit, hereinafter referred to as SD). SD is understood here as a meaning network phenomenon where meaning itself is dependable firstly on a relation between set of units1 (marked here as A unit) and a particular semantic value that has been assigned to them and, secondly, on an interpretation process. In this case, SD value is an outcome of an interpretation process that is done inside of abstractive and dynamic system (marked here as Qs system) by its elements. Therefore, Qs system is a set of units with SD value. However, Qs system is an operational structure-fiction, with self-explanation modus where all statements are believed to have logical value of truth or falsity. According to the theory defining something using indefinable units is highly misleading as individuals think about an object in terms of a category with precise meaning and indications of phonetic and written representation. This takes place because the process of thinking itself is restricted to a language as a device used to open the meaning value of SD. Obviously, SD semantic value is hidden due to the lack of 1 Unit is understood here as a lexical items vel a lexical unit. perfection of the language; however, it does not mean that phenomenon of A unit is entirely absent in Qs system. If the language is not able to demonstrate A unit semantic value, it is not a proof that the A unit phenomenon does not exist at all. Simply, individuals are not able to introduce it to the Qs system as A unit with SD value; still, a phenomenon of geometrical figures as; for example, a circle simply exists in biological and physical systems. Thus, if its representation could not be specified in the language then a set concept or term would not exist in the language representation at all. However, a circle is present as a phenomenon in biological, as well as, in physical systems. According to theoretical assumptions of semantic primitives, classifying a circle as an indefinable unit is flat denial of a communication process in a natural language since individuals are unable to think or to talk about something that is totally unknown due to lack of lexical representation in natural language. Even though individuals are not able to value SD verity it does not convince me; especially, as A. Wierzbicka suggests the needs for indefinable units. One cannot define everything. To define anything (without direct or indirect circularity) we need some indefinables. If our indefinables, or primitives, are not intuitively intelligible and self-explanatory, then our definitions will explain nothing. As pointed out by Pascal (1667/1963, p. 350) three hundred years e neither clearer nor (Wierzbicka, 1992: 541). I suppose that the process of meaning formation itself in the language ought to be investigated as assumption made by scholars as A. Wierzbicka, A. Dobaczewski and A. Dyszak (Dobaczewski 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b; Dyszak 1999a, 1999b; A. Wierzbicka 1969, 1989) who refer to a light as a lexical unit. In methodology, there is a rather simplified definition since it ignores the process of meaning formation. I am going to use a light lexical unit as an example of that process, where light is represented in the language as a sign in 1) written form and 2) a typical sound: [lait].2 2 Phonetic as well as written faculty is not to be discussed in this thesis.        II. QS SYSTEM: PHENOMENON OF CONCEPT(S) AND TERM(S) A. Light as a lexical unit in Qs system Light unit itself has got a particular denotation hidden in a domain of SD which is organized in SN structure. This structure gives to the system the ability to expand formal meanings of light unit, as well as, to initiate new associated concepts. According to this, it has been presupposed that lexicon is a kind of knowledge base neither able to develop itself nor to create new elements as a part of the system. With this regard, lexicon is only an information storage area where a particular meaning is hidden in a deep SD domain and ought to be brought out from the superficial SD level. Theorem [1]: 1. Let Q signify an abstractive and dynamic system (Qs system hereinafter referred to as Qs) as in the following schematic diagram (after Sonesson, 2010): TABLE I. QS SYSTEM PHENOMENON Perception Signs Signs system Embodied signs episodic Mimetic Mythic Theoretic Pantomime gesture tool-making imitating Language Pictures writing theory Iconicity indexicality Symbolicity Iconicity indexicality 2. Let A signify particular Qs unit, in which A is a representation of abstractive category of c with a set of subcategories S (s1 n) with a particular SD value. 3. Let c be marked here as a light. Formally, 1 3 points are set down as: A Qs c light unit : S (s1 2) = SD; Qs is treated here as a set of: system Perception is an external element of Qs system and it is not going to be questioned here; however, a process of perception itself is crucial for understanding formation phenomenon of concepts or terms. Therefore, it has been presupposed that perception in Qs system is semantically identical to SD value has been detected by individual perception and designated to a concept or a term framework. For instance, lexical unit light, in Polish [ ], as a term does not implement into SD value any additional simple or compound meanings as it happens with a light coke, a light woman, etc. Inversely, the light concept has got that exemplification in SD value, which is implemented into Qs by different lexical units: a light coke [in Polish: dietetyczna cola the dietetic Coke]; a light woman [in Polish: latawica, prostytutka prostitute]. The difference here is not semantic value of SD but phonetic, as well as, written form. Thus, mutual constant factor that is unchangeable in Qs is SD value of both concepts and terms. Below, in tables II III the distinctive factors between concepts and terms phenomenon in Qs framework system are presented. TABLE II. CONCEPTS VS. TERMS GENERAL DISTINCTION Concepts Terms Deficiency of one typical phonetic representation. Possess one typical phonetic representation. Deficiency of one written form. Possess one written form. The particular A unit of Qs understood either as a concept (concept hereinafter referred to as C) or as a term (term hereinafter referred to as T) has identical SD value. According to table II a concept element is a deficiency of one typical phonetic representation, as well as, deficiency of one written form, whereas terms as Qs unit have: one typical phonetic representation and also one written form. Therefore, concepts are primary units of Qs while terms are secondary units. Both units have particular SD value organized in SN. The relations between those elements are marked here as: (CSD SD) = c Qs unit C light SD + T (light phonetic + light written) light SD light Qs unit I argue here that particular A unit of Qs system has got SD value in CSD and TSD form with individual subcategories S for each of C and T. At this point, light as Qs unit marked here as c light Qs unit is understood as a set of SD consisting of C light SD and T light SD close semantic relations based on conceptual meaning systems, as well as a formal meaning system. The main distinctions of these two different, but complementary systems, conceptual and formal, are shown in table III, with reference to concepts as a domain of conceptual meaning system and terms as a domain of formal meaning system. TABLE III: CONCEPTS VS. TERMS DETAILED DISTINCTION Concepts Terms Dynamic and abstractive system compound unit. Static and abstractive system unit. Data possessing is based on semantically minimal lexical and non-lexical units. Data possessing is based on semantically intricate lexical units. Process of information development has got a limited impact factor on communication. Process of information development has got a high impact factor on communication. Arbitrary statements are developed on personal experience of particular individuals, referring to terms available in Qs system. Everyday experience, which is implemented into language. Subjective SD value. Arbitrate statements are developed on terms representation frequently avoiding semantic value of SD of particular Qs language, referring to personal experience of particular individuals. Language competence. Universal SD values. B. Concept(s)        Concepts are meaningful units of Qs dynamic and abstractive system that are marked here as C. According to the theory of systems: it is a dynamic connote constant development and changes in the meaning framework; for instance: the particular A unit is a new object that has been registered by the system in a perception process. Property of Qs system is an ability to develop and explain itself using available units that are intact in Qs system. This data possessing is based on a number of different operations: pure language or none-language operations (empirical experience). For example, if a particular individual incorporates an object into the Qs system as a category of herbs; initially, it is denoted as H name. Due to an belongs to a category of herbs, but it is impossible to explain its use unless a number of empirical operation is done. With a bush with small narrow leaves that smell sweet and are used in cooking as a herb (English Oxford Dictionary, hereinafter EOD). To be able to formulate that definition it is essential to implement H concept, which is a herb concept, as a c category, into terms domain. Unfortunately, that definition does not provide any information about H flavor and even particular cooking usage. The herb that it has been discussed here is a rosemary, and it has been defined by EOD as: 1) A bush with small narrow leaves that smell sweet and are used in cooking as a herb. Here, rosemary is a concept of herb category, but also it is a term in a different domain of knowledge, biology. Therefore, it is not going to be discussed here as biology belongs to the meta-knowledge domain. However, the process of term formation is extraordinarily complex, and the definition provided by Robert Allen in The New Penguin Dictionary (hereinafter NPD) or Adrian Room in A Dictionary of True Etymologies is not comprehensive. Middle English rosmarine from Latin rosmarinus from ror-, ros dew marinus of the sea, perhaps because of its small blue flowers The change in spelling came about by association with and the name Mary either from or giving rise to the legend that the Virgin Mary washed her robe and hung it on a rosemary bush to dry; the dye ran and coloured the flowers. (NPD) The name rosemary has nothing to do with the rose or the name Mary, but derives from the Latin name rosmarinus, which is from "dew" (ros) and "sea" (marinus apparently because it is frequently found growing near the sea. (Room, 1988: 150). With reference to the contemporary SD value of rosemary it is obvious that it has a limited impact factor on a communication process, which is highly restricted to empirical experience of individuals. Therefore, rosemary is not only well known as a widespread herb used for cooking mostly in Mediterranean (or Mediterranean related) cultures, but also it is known as a memory improving herb (medicine). Moreover, it is a cultural symbol of remembrance, e.g., weddings or funerals. III. LIGHT CONCEPT(S) Explanation of SD value of light unit given by Dobaczewski and Dyszak (see Dobaczewski 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b; Dyszak 1999a, 1999b) within the framework of methodology omits extended denotation, which is the ability of seeing/sight. SD of ability of seeing/sight unit is an inseparable factor (as a part) of SN of light, which implements into Qs system a number of random abstractive operations leading to a concept or net(s) of concepts, here SN. Therefore, it is crucial to approach light unit and ability of seeing/sight unit as paired units, which are universal in all linguistic systems. Thus, major difference between light and ability of seeing/sight that ought to be mentioned here refers to the source of light as the factor enabling process of seeing and; in consequence, process of meaning formation itself. Figure 1 presents relation between a source of light, process of seeing and ability of seeing/sight. Figure 1. relation of source of light, process of seeing and ability of seeing/sight. Those three elements are meronymys of light concept that consist of light as a term of Qs system with SD value, and they depend on: Source of light, which interpreting SD value of presses of seeing/sight and ability of seeing/sight; Here, source of light implements into SD of light concept new semantic elements, which are autonomous units of Qs. Moreover, the source of light is also a factor that enables random abstractive operation, for instance, foreseeing: event, things and artifacts in a particular cultural context as interpretational issues (see Garbacz, 2006). According to this, light concept depends on the sources of something that permits seeing. In that case, to see has SD value of to know/to believe, which are identical to the full extent. To see to know/to believe that something exist. In conclusion, light concept refers to the sources that make sight possible. Furthermore, other A units of Qs system are introduced as sun, heat, fire, etc., which are also meronymys of light. Elements of Qs system as sun, heat, fire, etc., are able to        (as concepts) produce secondary meanings in Qs system; moreover, they are able to generate different concepts itself, extending light SN in Qs. A. Term(s) and Concept(s) as Hybrid Units of Qs System Terms are units of static and abstractive system, and that means that static connotes constant SD value based on Thus, if we set terms against concepts, which are units of dynamic-abstractive system that connote variableness of SD value, we would discover that a process of concept formation is based on incomplex (?) explicate terms. When the distinctive features are registered in the operational area (interface), and general idea of concept is formed, self-effacing processes are started. This lead to terms process formation, in which concepts are obliterated and transformed by Qs systems rules into terms that no longer inform that particular A unit is a concept of something. This obliteration allows treating natural language as a hybrid Qs system in order to comprehend general idea of particular SD semantic value. Thus, terms are seen as a set of particular knowledge gathered during phenomenon of empirical experience of individual. This knowledge that has been stored in SN of Qs is a ground for a further inference. For instance, the above mentioned example a bush with small narrow leaves that smell sweet and are used in cooking as a herb which is a term in the concept of the rosemary domain. Similarly to this, light unit has got own bunch to a general term comprehensive part of the light. According to this, mutual factor of T and C are distinctive elements that could be associated with the particular knowledge of artifacts. Moreover, knowledge could be valued in categories of 1) truth false or 2) truth to believe to be false . Therefore, light unit is only the tip of the iceberg of complex semantic structures that ought to be questioned. B. Primary Model of Meaning Formation in Qs Hybrid System The distinctive factor between C SD and T SD is an operational component of meaning generating. Table IV presents the basic framework of Meaning Formation leading to a light tag. TABLE IV: PRIMARY MODEL OF MEANING FORMATION Final introduction of terms in Qs subsequent to Terms Formation Process forces different perception mechanism based on an inversion: perception process of TSD load different semantic information referring to CSD. Firstly, all data processing is made on terms as a part of abstractive-static system; what is more, terms are treated as a fastidious device used for opening the TSD value. Secondly, this particular process is highly misleading due to random A units delivered from a large number of different areas of knowledge. Figure 2 presents mechanism of knowledge association with light unit. light (p) HT1 Hybrid: sun term : heat light to see ENERGY HT2 Hybrid: fire term : sun heat light to see ENERGY T3 light term; C1 concept of light perception; light term formation; C2 to see C3 to know that something is HC4 to see artifact using senses HC5 to know that artifacts are concept; deduction and induction. Concepts are marked here as C, terms as T, whereas hybrids as H with: a) concept dominant HT, and b) term dominant HC. All elements of the Figure 2 are indispensable to the light SD value. They are also simultaneously introduced by a mechanism of meaning formation and cannot be omitted during the term formation process. C1 is a significant factor of meaning formation process as it represents a concept of light perception. Relations presented in Figure 2 are f function: f: [(HT1, HT2) (HC4, HC5 [(HT1, HT2) (HC4, HC5)] as (C1, C2) are external elements of the Qs system. This assumption implicates reflection SD value of nonelight units that has been shown in Figure 3. Step 1: C SD value Step 2: Term Formation Process Step 3: T SD value [perception] of something Something = (gives) the ability to know/believe that something is. Light Concept (So-called [signs] [signs system] [embodied signs] Signs generating domain (Meaning assignment domain based on convention) [light]: typical phonetic representation. Light: one written form. Light Term (Lexical units domain) HT1 HT2 C2 C3 C T3 H HC5 Figure 2. SD of Light Unit in a SN Model I (light)        none-light (¬p) HT1 Hybrid: none-light term: f (sun moon) : light to see ENERGY HT2 Hybrid: fire term : fire heat light to see ENERGY T3 light term; C1 light concept; C2 concept; C3 concept; HC4 concept; empirical experience; HC5 concept; deduction and induction. SN of light comprises light and none-light units, and it is marked as a function f (p, ¬p): f (p, ¬p) where p = light unit and ¬p = none-light unit; Arguments p is a set of: f (p): [(HT1, HT2) (HC4, HC5 [(HT1, HT2) (HC4, HC5)]} as (HC4, HC5) is independent category of perception; Argument ¬p is a set of: f (¬p): [(HT1) (HC4, HC5) HT2 ¬p (HT1 {(C1, C2, C3) [(HT1) (HC4, HC5)]} as (HC4, HC5) is independent category of perception; Both arguments p and ¬p are simultaneous in the process of perception, with different relations between its elements p (HT, HT2), which are semantically related in SD value. Still, ¬p (HT1, HT2) are not related HT2 ¬p (HT1), and because of that a new factor is implemented into C1 semantic value: moon as an external and natural object enabling process of seeing; thus, HT2 has SD value as: p: [sun (enabling seeing, heat), fire (enabling seeing, heat) + directional quantifier]; ¬p: none-sun vs. [moon (enabling seeing, none-heat), fire (enabling seeing, heat) + directional quantifier]. When HT2 transformation from natural into artificial manmade object is completed, the new semantic elements are introduced immediately into the Qs system as secondary units with a different meaning; here fire unit belongs to p, as well as, ¬p as a close reflection of two different universes. Therefore, analyzing terms of light domain as a set of lexical units in order to examine its SD value leads to erroneous conclusions due to questioning the secondary Qs units instead of primary one. Light as a term of Qs slipping implication device that makes possible to see device to see that is marked in this paper as follows: Light device to see to see know/to believe + directional quantifier. According to these inferences light unit, as well as, to see unit is not a property of domain since it is possible to indicate other components in the term set as device unit is a set of [(to know/to believe) + (directional quantifier)]. Frankly, SD elementary value of c light unit is: 1) Something (device) that makes vision possible (to see) by stimulating the sense of sight; (NPD) 2) Something (device) that brings about the ability of seeing objects (to see) which are there (directional quantifier); (see Dobaczewski 1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b; Dyszak 1999a, 1999b) 3) It is the energy (device) from the sun, a lamp, etc. That makes it possible to see (to see) things. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English; Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, EOD) Sentence (3) comprises uncategorized element of SD marked as energy, which is understood as a device. However, here it is necessary to talk about sets of devices as a result of mankind interference into biological and physical systems or natural activity itself that could by noticed by individuals. SN that has been showed in Figure 2 and 3 refer to the simultaneity of the process of perception light as a set of f (p, ¬p) where p is a device that makes vision possible, while ¬p is a lack of devices that makes vision possible. What is more, process of seeing is inseparable from the process of knowing that something is, both of them are also simultaneous. Therefore, it is claimed that: Theorem [2]: 1. Let X be a set of arguments enabling process of seeing. 2. Let Y be a set of arguments enabling process of knowing that something is. Therefore: [X (to make visible to know/believe that something is)] + directional quantifier); 3. f : X Y is a function iff ¬p Y because p X. HT1 HT2 C2 C C1 T3 HC4 HC Figure 3. SD of Light Unit in a Semantic Network Model II (none-light)        IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS It has been assumed that methodology constitutes an ideal semantic model; lexical unit light SD value is subordinate to the context, which depends on the Qs systems that are intact during the period of historical continuance of cultural development. According to supposition it is noticeable that a unit as a basic term does not refer to semantic simplicity itself, because light as a component of Qs system possesses the ability to develop and multiply secondary meaning; therefore, the reductive approach towards the basic terms ought to be questioned. V. REFERENCES [1] Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild. [2] Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV), K. Böttger, M. Giger, B. Wiemer, Eds., band 2, München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1999a, pp. 93-99. [3] -26, 1999b. [4] Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Filologia Polska, no 55, pp. 53-60, 2001a. [5] A. Dobaczewski, semantycznie proste? the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages. Papers in Honour of Chrakovskij, M. Grochowski, G. Hentschel, Eds., Oldenburg: Bibliotheksund Information , 2001b, pp. 121132. [6] iach 27-29 maja 1998 roku, B. Greszczuk, Ed., Rzeszów: -205. [7] [8] English Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved from http://public.oed.com/subscriber-services/lookup-tools. [9] P. Garbacz, Logika i artefakty. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2006. [10] Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Retrieved from http://www.ldoceonline.com. [11] The New Penguin Dictionary, R. Allen, Ed., London: Penguin Books, 2000. [12] A. Room, A Dictionary of True Etymologies. Taylor and Francis, 1988. [13] Semiosis and the Elusive Final Interpretant of -258, 2010. [14] A. Wierzbicka, 1969. [15] A. Wierzbicka, Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenaum-Verl, 1972. [16] Quaderni di Semantica, no 1, pp. 103-121, 1989. [17] A. Wierzbicka, Cognitive Science, no 16, pp. 539-581, 1992. Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/1992v16/i04/p0539p0581/MAIN.PDF.       