curiosity. These conditions call forth the opportunity of the conversion of narration into interrogative

Such pair can be derived not only from each hypotaxis but also from a simple sentence in the way of periphrastic transformation. To develop further the cited examples of transformations one can exemplify also easy transitions from narrative enunciations to dialogue: Trees stand without foliage in the winter ↔ Trees are naked (void of foliage) because it’s winter now ↔ - Why are the trees bare? – It is winter already! Another sample of a transformation of the kind attests derivative capacities of a single proposition taken as a textual passage: The evergreen fir-tree decorates the wintertime ↔ It is the everlasting fir-tree’s greenness that decorates the wintertime ↔ - What’s the remarkable fir-tree’s property? - It is to decorate the wintertime with its greenness. ↔ - Why can the fir-trees decorate the wintertime? - It is due to their property of being evergreen etc. Thus we can see that inferential capacities of the simplest passage of a text grow enormously from taxis to communicative interrogative enunciations. To use the already mentioned term text is polypredicative structure that becomes evident in its actual aspect, and it entails prolific consequences. Each proposition as the textual element presupposes not only a series of statements as its immediate conclusions but also the transformation of equivalent representation as hypotaxis and communicative derivations in the form of interrogative enunciations with responses. Thus a multitude of textual versions arises so that the given one becomes only one of the opportunities accompanied with a set of invisible virtual derivations.

Communication involves also the location as “author-addressee” relationship but can’t be reduced to it. It is intention that comes into play together with communicative functions and reveals itself as interrogation. Respectively text reveals itself as the purposeful & expedient action so that together with mediating mission of text as medium one has to bear in mind that it is to deal with the already discussed teleology of text. Communication would turn out to become unnecessary if there weren’t differences between the competences of those communicating. It is already antecedent and consequent that manifest different intentions and therefore the differentiation of person’s worlds makes communication indispensable so that communication becomes discussion.

The properties of communicative message ensuing from its intentional load give grounds to substantiate the theory of speech acts (elaborated initially by J. Searle) where the genera of locution (mere informative enunciation), illocution (the message with the aim of persuading the addressee) and perlocution (the communication between the partners that is addressed actually to the third person or observer) are to be discerned. One discerns also the communicative conditions concerning the competence of addressee, the sincerity of enunciation, the comprehensibility of its contents, the admissibility of the arguments that would substantiate the statement so that the “directive” would become capable of accomplishing [Тэк-Гю Хонг, 2003, 136-137]. There are also other conditions of communicative process concerning the so called rules of cooperation between the partners: they include first of all the necessity of the truth or at least of the similitude of enunciations (otherwise the process will be interrupted if one of the partners detects the falsehood). The overt and evident liar won’t be able to participate in communication. Another rule concerns the degrees of sophistication vs. simplification of the enunciations: they must contain neither excess nor deficit of information, because in the first case the communication would turn into a simple chatting and in the second case the questions would interrupt the speech. Subsequently communication can’t contain puzzles that would stop the process. Intentions presuppose respectively the initiative of the discussion that determines one of the participants. At last there can’t be too wide deviations from the theme so that the communicative axis must be given [Норман, 2006, 195 – 196]. It can go about divergence or convergence of intentions (as well as of the situation of the lack of comprehension when the communication becomes destroyed). Intentions with their differences attested in communication give grounds to the generation of inferences. Intention acts also as the integrative force and reveals itself through mediation. Thus communication is inference itself, its purpose being the conclusion as the result of discussion.

One should only notice that these regularities have been known for ages in the art of theatre as well as in the genera of literature’s theory so that one can by no means say of any discovery. In particular illocution is the inherent property of lyrics especially evident in apostrophes (not to say of prayers or psalms) whereas perlocution is the usual effect of theatre conversation actually addressed to the audience though carried out between the dramatis personae. As to the communicative axis it has been deeply investigated by K.S. Stanislavsky.
1.3.Idioms as the Morphological Category
1.3.1. Semantic Derivation as the Morphological Process
Instead of the supposed invariant deep structure with its abstract “kernel” sentences suggested within the generative – transformational approach as the basis of textual integration that has proved to be invalid it seems more reasonable in searches for alternative basis to use the morphological concept of inner and outer form. The advantages of this concept seem to be associated with their capacity of joining the above discussed integrative aspects of text. First of all the concept of inner form enables conceiving derivational opportunities as the inner property of textual stuff ensuing from motivation²⁷⁹. This derivative process is indebted to associative motifs accumulated with the inner form which enables thus joining together different essences²⁸⁰. Then it is the heuristic mission that is proper to inner form and becomes the premise for interpretative activity. Derivation looks then like searches within the latent contents involving presupposition.

These properties of inner form are most evidently demonstrated within the inner form of separate words. As an important property of inner form of word is its intermediary role in promoting dependence of separate elements upon the entire language’s system, integration of a language’s entirety from these elements and the renovating them both through reintegration²⁸¹. This reintegration and renovation of language is founded upon the derivative possibilities as the immanent properties of a word that never can become a vehicle of something ready and steady²⁸². It is images and not notions that determine a word’s content and its primary nomination as well, their absence denoting a provisional “state of repose”²⁸³. These conclusions on derivation and images as the inherent property of primary nomination were summed up in what can be called “Potebnya’s paradox”²⁸⁴. The presence of derivational possibilities in a word and their concealment within its inner form is being constantly testified through their detection and revelation in poetry. It is in poetry that the “increments of meaning” (as Potebnya called them) are both explored and brought forth²⁸⁵. The corollary of this paradox presumes that the derivative potential is not only presented in the inner form. It is here to be found the condensation of the derivative potential, be it allowed to apply Potebnya’s concept about the condensation of thought. That such condensation is presupposed can be proved with the very fate of inner form where still new semantic transitions become explored and discovered. This condensation is to be conceived as the density of the referential net of a lexical unit that connects it with all other units and respectively the density of interpretative opportunities of the textual segment. Moreover V.Z. Demyankov suggests that inner form should be conceived just as the condensation of interpretability and respectively of the heuristics of the appropriate form’s selection²⁸⁶. Such condensation in its turn entails ambiguity and ambivalence as it goes derivative opportunities that are still to be revealed and manifested explicitly in outer form.

It can be exemplified with the case of semantic divergence coming to antonyms <починати / кінчати> where the inner form is concealed in the etymon reflected in <закон, кін>. As the demonstration of the increased density of interpretability and ensuing ambiguity a set of synonymous rows may be regarded where a word can function in various contexts. For instance the word stars as an astronomical term is a partial synonym to the denotations of heavenly bodies such as planets, but in the rites of fertility as a trope of infinite quantity it becomes synonymous, for instance, to the herd of sheep – as in the Serbian song: «Осу се небо звездама /И равно полье овцама» (The sky is bestrewn with stars and the field is bestrewn with sheep) [Станкович, p. 65, № 84]. Eye belongs to the terms of corporeal parts but as a trope it can become synonym to a lake (for example, Polish oko morskie (sea eye) as a typical name of a mountain lake – it is to compare here also Engl. the eye of the wind). In “A comparative dictionary of English and Russian Lexicology of Song Folklore” the methods of taxonomic (cluster) classification of words were applied, and it has turned out that “there are no equivalents in the English ethnic world image for the concept that is represented with the lexeme pure (in Russian чистый) as in <чисто поле> (“pure field”) and is connected with a qualitative evaluation of space” [Хроленко, 2001, 131]: such a concept is included in folklore in other synonymous rows, that do not carry “direct” terminological sense. Referential net determining semantic shifts of separate expressions, the so called “condensation of thought” (Potebnya’s notion) becomes prerequisite for folding narrative contents within the boundaries of a single phrase²⁸⁷. From this circumstance the conclusion follows as to the possibility of treating separate lexemes as such folds²⁸⁸. This statement has an obvious outlook of the reversal of Vinogradov’s notion of a locution as the expansion of a word. Obviously due to this condensation such folds are comparable to etymons that represent a whole class of words united in the etymological nest.

Each act of designation on any language is always variable; it is ready to point to objects quite different to those meant before. The logical principle of identity is conceived as a rule with numerous reservations to be applied for a language. In its turn the constant inconstancy of lexical meaning, its continuous transformation entails the question as to its motivation, and it is in their point that etymology comes to an aid to detect and describe derivative processes. In particular, it is the origin of new meaning that stands behind explicatory notions of derivation, according to the famous thought of A.A.Potebnya²⁸⁹. Such an approach can also be interpreted in the sense that only selected and separate possibilities of a word’s semantic potential do find their realization in a speech act while the rest of them remain the set of virtual meanings, so that inner form can be regarded as a repository of virtual senses resembling Leibniz’s “possible worlds”²⁹⁰. Obviously those components of virtual senses which can gain actuality in speech act are to be regarded as the derivative sense in relation to all others that are left in its shadow.

It is the derivation with its potential changes of meaning that turns out to become the most essential side of inner form. One can suspect a latent puzzle under the “shell” or “skin” of inner form, and it is this mystery that is partly revealed in separate cases of the usage of a word. Thus the universal incompleteness of verbal means of signification, the representation of the signified essence through separate details becomes original and genuine source of the generation of derivative senses. Sign signifies the signified essence just as it conceals it with pointing to separate particulars of the essence’s revelations. While giving testimony to one side of the object the sign covers the other side with inner form’s “shell”. Each such act of designation of separate details referring to the deeply concealed mystery becomes a trope as far as it attests the existence of latent meanings. Thus the inner form of a word may be said to incarnate its derivational potential. These semantic opportunities are acknowledged even to the degree of their capacity for autonomous development²⁹¹. Respectively it implies the priority of the self-development so that the paradox of the observer exerting impact upon object and the object influencing observer is to be seen: the word as the object represented with its inner form possesses power making an observer adapt his conduct to its shapes. Inner form presents its contents as the problem stills to be explored instead of ready information.

When the primary nomination is acknowledged as the initial point of the state of transitiveness, of new semantic shifts and consequently new tropes, it makes one look for motivation of such shifts (seeming explanations and interpretations of the character of vulgar etymology included) so that provisional nests are built²⁹². Such provisional nests are also explained with the mentioned intermediary role of inner form reflected in the special name “bridge form”²⁹³. Thus nests are created to serve for transition from colloquial language to idiolect. It is worth noticing in this respect the interpretation of the concept of inner form’s changeability suggested by V.M. Rusanivsky who sees here the source of derivative processes so that the destruction of a former inner form entails the birth of the new one attesting the inexhaustible resources of word²⁹⁴. In its turn the changeability of inner form can become the measure of semantic transitions and historical development of words within the diachronic perspective²⁹⁵.

Derivation being an inherent property of inner form, a perspective for the codification of semantic transitions opens on a large scale. This circumstance was especially stressed by O.N.Trubachev who had projected a task of the elaboration of a dictionary where “diachronic dynamics of meanings” would be reflected, so that types of derivations would become its entries²⁹⁶. An attempt of the continuation of Trubachev’s ideas has been undertaken by N.D.Andreyev who had succeeded in building up such a system of semantic field that don’t follow any above predetermined scheme but are based on the inherent features of language development²⁹⁷. For example one can learn from here that the idea expressed with the numeral four (Latin quattuor) is connected with a fence and of its stinging the outer side; the idea of love proves to be connected to a seasonal (summer) separation from a community; the idea of sensation (Latin sentio) reveals connections with the name of sun (Latin solus) and of salt (that remains after the evaporation caused by sun) [see Andreyev, 1986, p. 101, 171, 255]. The source of semantic derivation is to be found in the circumstances of lexical attraction (determined with alliterative attraction as well) resulting in the formation of composed words²⁹⁸.

The constant variability of meanings of inner form (and therefore the necessity of outer form for elucidating the utterance) was explained by P.Florensky as the infinite process of adaptation of personal speech acts to communal norms²⁹⁹. These statements are demonstrated with an example of the elucidation of the inner form of a word кипяток (boiling water), that has kinship to German hüpfen (jump), Greek  “to fall head over heels”, and all it leads to a conclusion: “Boiling water denotes a dancer, a jumper, a skipper” [Ibid., p. 245]³⁰⁰. Thus one can say that inner form reveals itself through relative and partial interpretations comprising them in absolute contents as potential derivatives and coming necessarily to outer form. It is worth warning here against the overestimation of relative interpretative generation of derivative meanings. To recall it, each relativism is liable to relative regard and thus to self-negation. While denying itself the relative approach turns to absolute positions that bring it to being and determine its peculiarities. One could refer to the whole theory developed by L. Reiners where the inner form is regarded as the source for the generation of text. In particular it is stylistic vitality that is ascribed by him to the textual manifestation of inner form. The main feature is here to be found in the natural pulsation and breathe of text with the alternative tensions and relaxations³⁰¹. It is to stress the universal nature of inner form’s concept that has also found its application in music [Шаповалова, 1987]. Inner form coincides with what is designated as deep structure in opposite to surface as the correlation to outer form. Therefore it can be generalized within the more voluminous textual stratification with its transformations and transitions of layers.

Further development of this concept is to be found in G.O. Vinokur’s works. Inner form taken in the broader sense as textual integrative essence of poetry becomes here the source of semantic derivations and exhaustible enrichment of contents and therefore the instrument for explaining the motivation of semantic development. In particular the confrontation of “near” and “far” meanings suggested by A.A. Potebnya is here applied to reconsidering initial direct lexical meanings in poetry³⁰². Furthermore it has given impetus for the revision of earlier simplified approach to inner form³⁰³. The conclusion was the statement on the total motivation in poetry substantiated with the doctrine of the inner form³⁰⁴. In its turn this division implies the necessity of involving the outer form as the only way for the manifestation of the latent derivability. The concepts of near & far meanings (resp. direct & transferred) have then been enlarged so that it becomes possible to say of initial & final meanings generated from the poetic inner form³⁰⁵. Thus it is mobility of the borders between the direct and transferred meanings that the transition from inner to outer form entails. Therefore the barrier between the Signifier and the Signified is also overcome in poetic text.

It would be also useful to notice that the classical approach putting stress on the inner form exclusively apparently displays the deficiency of unilateral sin. Inner form can’t be conceived as something self-sufficient taken without its transitions and transformations into the outer form where it only can be revealed. Inner form as the idea elaborated in Neo – Platonic circles presupposes the principle of emanation that’s of revealing the inner contents in the outer phenomena. Therefore while mentioning the concept of inner form one always has to bear in mind the transitory state inherent for inner form as the metamorphose on the way to its outer shape.

The relationship between object and its attributes and the selection of attributes determine objectively the contents. At the same time to restrict the sense (signification) to an abstract attribute in opposite to meaning (denotation) as the designation of objects’ classes would mean to come to a contradiction. With this approach a vicious circle arises: sense (signification) designates the partitive attributes of an object (in the manner of Venus and Aurora as the names for the evening and morning appearances or attributes of the same object of planet) and at the same time the very attributes are designated with the names of other objects (as the names of the ancient Goddesses in the cited example). Then it would be doubtful whether objects (respectively classes) are designated at all or it must go only about attributes of the unknown objects that can be only vaguely delineated with the aid of abstractions built of attributes³⁰⁷. The same concerns the opposition of actual vs. potential meanings (and respective sentence’s division): it doesn’t go about the meaning that is “actual” one for the given use of the text (special designation) only. There are still further contents behind “actual” meanings that are meant in the text as a message. Here the textual priority in relation to signs plays the decisive role: text as the medium performing its mission becomes message determining its contents. It is the mediating mission of the text that becomes principal property, and communicative tasks accomplish here only subordinate secondary role indicating a particular case.

An alternative solution of the problem consists in the interpretation of meaning as only attributive facets (or features) of the whole contents without presuming an object standing behind. This viewpoint developed by A. V. Bondarko (in difference to Yu. D. Apresyan’s approach based on the confrontation of attributive parameters to the supposedly known object) seems to be more preferable especially while here meaning vs. sense acquires the outlook of the representational relationship of the signifying vs. the signified³⁰⁸, namely of the deep latent contents (with its problematic core) and its surface. This approach lets sense be opposed to meaning as infinite contents to bordered and restricted means of its representation³⁰⁹. Thus sense (signification) is expressed with