§ 119. As noted above, each word in any language expresses a specific lexical meaning or a set of different meanings - two or more. Both in Russian and in many other languages, most words express at least two meanings. It is easy to verify this by referring to explanatory dictionaries. So, for example, in modern Russian, according to the Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language, nouns mountain, river, audience and many others have two lexical meanings, water, sea and others - three each, house- four, head – five , hand - eight, adjective green– five meanings, new - nine, old– 10, verb wear- nine, carry - 12, walk - 14, fall - 16, stand - 17, go - 26, etc., not counting all sorts of shades of different meanings. For comparison, we can provide similar data from the Lithuanian language. In the Lithuanian Dictionary, for example, for a noun auditorium(audience) two values are also indicated, kalnas(mountain) – three meanings, namas(house) – six meanings (plural) namai – seven), ranka(hand) – ten, for an adjective naujas(new) – eight, for verb kristi(fall) – 22 values, nesti(carry) – 26, eiti(go) – 35, etc. Words that express two or more lexical meanings are called polysemic, or polysemic (polysemantic); The presence of at least two meanings in a word is called, accordingly, polysemy, or polysemy (cf. Greek. poly –"a lot of", sema– “sign, meaning”, polysemos– “multi-valued”).
The number of words expressing only one lexical meaning (sometimes with different semantic connotations) is extremely limited in many languages. In the Russian language, these include mainly words of foreign origin, terms from various branches of knowledge, many derivative words, in particular, nouns with an abstract meaning, etc. In the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language, one meaning is indicated, for example, for nouns bicycle, cyclist, cyclist, tram, tram driver, tractor, tractor driver, tractor driver, plane, aircraft construction, pilot, female pilot, collective farm, collective farmer, collective farmer, state farm, peasant, peasant woman, student, female student, expressiveness, literacy, perseverance, courage, masculinity, adjectives scarlet, blue, black, brown, purple, bicycle, tractor, tram, peasant, student etc. Words that express no more than one lexical meaning are called unambiguous, or monosemic (monosemantic), the presence of a word with only one meaning is unambiguous, or monosemic (cf. Greek. monos- "one").
§ 120. The lexical meanings of many words, both single-valued and polysemous, are a complex phenomenon. Just as many words consist of materially expressed parts, morphemes, as discussed above, a single lexical meaning of a word can consist of different “pieces,” elements, segments. Elementary, smallest, ultimate, i.e. further indivisible, an integral part of the lexical meaning of a word is called seme(cf. Greek sema). According to V.I. Kodukhov, “each meaning... has several semantic features (sem).” The set of semes of one or another lexical meaning is called sememe.
The seme composition of the lexical meaning of a word, or sememe, can be explained using the example of the basic, nominative meanings of kinship terms, i.e. words denoting the names of family relationships: father, mother, son, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law etc. The nominative meanings of each of these words have one seme, or archiseme, common to all of them as a separate component, i.e. the generic, integrating meaning is “relative”. In addition, each of them has a number of differential semes, which are specific clarifications of a given generic concept. So, for the basic, nominative meaning of the word father The following semes act as differential semes: 1) “male sex” (in contrast to the seme “female sex”, as in the meaning of words mother, daughter, niece etc.), 2) “parent” (as opposed to the seme “born”, as in the meaning of the words son daughter), 3) “direct relationship” (as opposed to the seme “indirect relationship”, as in the meaning of the words nephew niece), 4) “blood relationship” (in contrast to the seme “non-blood relationship”, as in the meaning of the words stepfather, stepmother), 5) “first generation” (in contrast to the terms “second generation”, “third generation”, as in the meaning of the words grandfather, great-grandfather). A similar composition of semes is also characteristic of the nominative meanings (semes) of other kinship terms; their nominative meanings differ from each other only in individual differential semes. For example, the nominative meaning of the word mother differs from the corresponding meaning of the word father only the first of the above-mentioned differential semes (“female sex”), the meaning of the word son– the second differential seme (“born”), etc.
In the lexical meanings of derivative, semantically motivated words, individual semes are expressed using word-forming morphemes and affixes. So, for example, in the meaning of nouns denoting the names of persons by type of activity, occupation, the seme “activity, occupation” can be expressed by suffixes -tel, -ist- etc. (cf. meanings of words: teacher, lecturer, writer, leader; driver, tank driver, tractor driver and etc.); seme "female" in the meaning of nouns denoting the names of female persons - by suffixes -k-, -prostrate- etc. (cf. meanings of words: student, artist, tractor driver; teacher, lecturer, writer); the seme “incompleteness (of a characteristic)” in the meaning of some qualitative adjectives – with a suffix -ovat-(cf. meanings of words: whitish, yellowish, reddish, thickish, narrow); the seme “beginning (of action)” in the meaning of many verbs – with a prefix behind-(cf. meanings of words: speak, sing, roar, light up, laugh) and so on. According to I. S. Ulukhanov’s definition, in the lexical meanings of such words there are at least two parts, two components: 1) the motivating part, i.e. part of the meaning expressed by the producing, motivating word, and 2) the formant part, i.e. part of the meaning expressed by a word-forming device, or formant.
The lexical meanings of many derivative words, in addition to the obligatory semantic components expressed by their production and word-formation means, contain additional semantic components that are not directly expressed by the named elements of the corresponding derivatives. Such semantic components, or semes, are called idiomatic, or phraseological. Idiomaticity (phraseology) as a special semantic component is found, for example, as part of the nominative meanings of nouns teacher, writer, tractor driver etc. Such nouns do not denote any person performing the corresponding work, but only one for whom performing this work is a profession, i.e. main type of work activity.
Some linguists consider it as one of the components of the lexical meaning, or “component of the internal content,” of a semantically motivated word motivation, or motivation. by which is meant “the “justification” of the sound appearance of this word contained in the word and realized by the speakers, i.e. its exponent is an indication of the motive that determined the expression of a given meaning by this particular combination of sounds, as if the answer to the question “Why is it called that?” ". In linguistic literature, the compound term “internal form of the word” is also widely used to denote the concept in question. In As examples of words containing motivation or having an internal form, we can cite the names of the days of the week. Let's compare the Russian adova: Tuesday(the day is named so because it is the second in the week), Wednesday(a day in the middle of the week) Thursday(fourth day of the week), Friday(fifth day of the week). The names of different days of the week are also motivated in other languages, for example, German Mittwoch(Wednesday; Wed. Mitte"middle", Woche –"week"), Polish wtorek(Tuesday; Wed. wtory –"second"), s"roda(Wednesday; Wed. s"rod –"among", s"rodek –"middle"), czwartek(Thursday; Wed. czwarty –"fourth"), piqtek(Friday; Wed. piqty –"fifth"), Czech stfeda(Wednesday; Wed. stredrn –"average"), ctvrtek(Thursday; Wed. сtvrty –"fourth"), patek(Friday; Wed. pat y- "fifth"). In Lithuanian, all seven days of the week are called compound words derived from the stem of the noun diena(day) and the stems of the corresponding ordinal numbers, for example: pirmadienis(Monday; Wed. pinnas –"first"), antradienis(Tuesday; Wed. antras- "second"), treciadienis(Wednesday; Wed. trecias -"third"), etc.
§ 121. The totality of semes (archisemes and differential semes) of one or another lexical meaning of a word, one or another seme, forms core given value, which is also called denotative meaning (from lat. denotatum– “marked, designated, designated”), conceptual meaning (from lat. conceptus- “idea of something, concept”), conceptual core, or denotative, conceptual seme, conceptual seme. The core of the lexical meaning of a word, its denotative, conceptual seme is “the most important part of the lexical meaning”, which “in most significant words constitutes a mental reflection of a particular phenomenon of reality, an object (or class of objects) in the broad sense (including actions, properties, relationships etc.)".
In addition to the conceptual core, the lexical meanings of many words include various additional, accompanying, peripheral meanings, or connotations, called connotative values, or connotations(from lat. sop– “together” and notatio"designation"). In linguistic literature, connotative meanings, or semes, are explained very ambiguously. Most often, iodine connotative meaning is understood as “the additional content of a word (or expression), its accompanying semantic or stylistic shades, which are superimposed on its main meaning, serve to express various kinds of expressive-emotional-evaluative overtones...”, “emotional, expressive, stylistic additions to the main meaning, giving the word a special coloring.” In explanatory dictionaries, the description of the lexical meanings of words containing connotative semes is accompanied by corresponding evaluative notes, for example, in the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language: dad(colloquially and regionally), head(colloquially) belly(colloquially) Virgo(obsolete, translated into poetic and stylized speech), cheeks(obsolete, poetic), eye(obsolete, and folk poet.), brow(obsolete and poetic) glutton(colloquial), Swedish(outdated and spacious.), big-eyed(colloquially) mischievous(spacious) mischief(spacious) schoolboy(colloquial), beg(spacious) sleep(in common parlance, with a touch of contempt), eat(roughly colloquial). These semes are most often found in the meanings of words containing evaluative suffixes, suffixes of emotional evaluation. The same dictionary lists some personal nouns with evaluative suffixes: boy, little boy, mother, mummy, mummy, mommy, daddy, daddy, son, sonny, little son, little man(accompanied by the mark "colloquial."), mommy, daddy(obsolete, colloquial), human flesh– in meaning "man" (colloquial, usually joking), father, brother, brother, girl, girl, girl, boy, daddy, daddy, daddy(spacious) buddy, buddy(affectionate) brother, brother(diminish and caress.), mother(obsolete, and folk poet.).
In the lexical meanings of some words, connotative components of meaning, connotative semes come to the fore. According to A.P. Zhuravlev, they have “conceptual (i.e. conceptual. – V.N.) although the core exists, it does not express the essence of the meaning." In the meaning of the word big guy for example, “the main thing is not that it is a person, but that it is "high, awkward person." Some interjections are characterized by similar semantics. According to Yu. S. Maslov, "in every language there are significant words for which the expression of certain emotions is not an additional, but the main meaning (for example, interjections Wow! Ugh! or brr!) or the transmission of commands - incentives to certain actions (stop! away! scatter! at! in the sense of “take”, etc.)".
Both in Russian and in other languages, words with meanings that do not have connotative semes (in the understanding given above) obviously predominate. Most words in different languages express only conceptual meanings. Connotative semes are absent, in particular, in the nominative meanings of most words of different parts of speech, such as, for example: man, friend, father, mother, son, hand, leg, head, house, forest, water, mountain, river, lake, white, blue, big, small, fast, young, old, three, ten, fifteen, long ago, early, today, go, sit, write, read, talk and many others.
§ 122. Various semantic elements of a word, or lexemes (both individual lexical meanings of a polysemantic word, or seme, and parts, components of a single meaning, or seme), are connected with each other by certain relationships. This allows us to talk about the semantic, or semantic, structure of the word (both polysemantic and unambiguous). Semantic structure of a word(lexemes) are the relationships between different semantic elements (sememes and semes) of a given word as a complex whole.
When speaking about the semantic structure of a word, linguists mean, first of all, the different meanings of polysemantic words, connections and relationships between them. According to V.I. Kodukhov’s definition, " semantic structure of a word is formed by semantic components (meanings, lexico-semantic variants) of different types.”
The connection between different meanings of a polysemantic word is that they reflect objects and phenomena of reality that are similar in some respects and have a common semantic component. D. N. Shmelev explains this connection in the following words: “By forming a certain semantic unity, the meanings of a polysemantic word are connected on the basis of the similarity of realities (in form, appearance, color, value, position, and also commonality of function) or contiguity... There is a semantic connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word, which is also expressed in the presence of common elements of meaning - sem. This can be shown using the example of a noun board, which differs, in particular, in the following meanings: 1) a flat cut of wood obtained by longitudinal sawing of a log; 2) a large plate on which to write with chalk; 3) a billboard for announcements or any indicators, etc. The connection between these meanings is found in the fact that different objects denoted by this word have some external similarity, which is reflected in the definition of different meanings: a flat cut of wood, a large plate, a shield; they all denote a specific object that has a flat shape.
The differences between the individual meanings of a polysemantic word lie, first of all, in the presence of certain differential semes in each of them, reflecting the specific features of the designated objects, such as the purpose of the corresponding object (a board for making something, for example, furniture; a writing board chalk; notice board, etc.), the material from which the designated item is made, features of the external shape of the item, size, color, etc.
When determining the semantic structure of a word, the presence of the lexical meaning (sememe) of its constituent parts (seme), which in turn are related to each other by known relationships, is also taken into account. Different semes of one seme are united by the fact that they are all associated with the designation of the same object, phenomenon and, thus, represent a unique structural whole. At the same time, they differ from each other according to various characteristics, on the basis of which their classification is carried out (cf. archisemes and differential semes of one or another seme, denotative and connotative semes, etc.). On this basis we can talk about structure of the lexical meaning of a word, which, according to V.I. Kodukhov’s definition, “is made up of the semantic components of each meaning.” According to A.G. Gak, “each lexical-semantic variant is a hierarchically organized set seven– a structure that distinguishes an integrating generic meaning (archiseme), a differentiating specific meaning (differential seme), as well as potential semes that reflect the secondary properties of an object that actually exist or are attributed to it by the collective.”
1. “A verb is a part of speech that expresses the grammatical meaning of an action (i.e., a mobile feature, realized in time) and functions primarily as a predicate” [Yartseva, 1998, p. 104], that is, the main feature of a verb in all languages of the world is movement or movement. N.D. Arutyunova noted that “the concept of a path as a purposeful movement plays a big role in relation not only to a person’s life, but also to his mental actions and movements, since they are purposeful.” [Arutyunova, 1999, p. 16].
Movement is a fundamental concept that expresses the relations of objective reality. "The semantics of movement connects space and time. Movement is the third component included in the concept of chronotope." [Arutyunova, 1994, p. 4] It is the seme of movement that separates the verb from the name, which lacks this seme. Movement or dynamics predetermines the distinction between static and dynamic verbs, the latter presuppose the presence of movement, the former its absence.
The contrast between “movement” and “state of rest” is semantic in nature. The concept of “action” means a dynamic change of certain static relationships [Gurevich, 1999, p. 175-176].
Verbs of motion belong to a number of the most significant units of natural language. Psycholinguists G. Miller and F. Johnson-Laird also drew attention to the fact that this group is quickly and easily absorbed by young children, despite the fact that for an adult, studying this topic can cause many difficulties, which has been repeatedly noted by researchers in the field of linguodidactics and RCT . Moreover, motion tokens are frequency-based, and these facts have led psycholinguists to say that motion verbs are “the most characteristically verbal of all the verbs.”
In a broad sense, verbs of movement or verbs of movement mean any lexemes that denote the location of the subject in space. However, there are researchers who prefer to separate verbs of movement and verbs of movement. One of the most famous works on this topic? "Fundamentals of Structural Syntax" by L. Tenier (1959). This linguist draws a line between verbs of movement and movement, accepting the claim that verbs of movement describe the manner of changing location, while verbs of movement focus on the direction of movement: "movement is the goal, and movement is merely the means to achieve it" [op. . according to Gorban 2002, p.27], “movement is internal to the subject, while movement is a characteristic external to it” [ibid., p. 27]. To the verbs of movement (mouvement) L. Tenier includes those lexemes that describe way location changes, for example, "marcher" ? "go, walk", "courir" ? "run", "trotter" ? "trot", "galoper" ? gallop, "ramper"? "crawl", "nager" ? "swim" and so on. To verbs of displacement (dеplacement), indicating a specific direction relative to the starting point, he attributed fr. "monter" ? "to rise", "descendre" ? "go down", "aller" ? "to leave", "venir" ? "to come", "entrer" ? "enter", "sortir" ? “go out”, etc. [Tenier, 1988, p. 298?299, 322?325]. Movement reflects the personal characteristics of the subject, indicating the method and means of movement that seem most natural to him. When talking about movement, we refer to the geometry of space, it is determined by the direction - up, down, there, here, etc. [Gorban 2002, p. 27-28].
There are researchers who attribute movement to a particular manifestation of movement, for example, V. G. Gak believes that verbs of movement are “verbs and predicates that indicate movement associated with overcoming the limits of some space (Peter enters the garden, Peter leaves from the garden)" [cit. according to Gorban, 2002, p. 28].
In this work, the terms “verbs of movement” and “verbs of movement” will be used as synonyms when naming verbal lexemes denoting the movement of living beings or objects in space. We do not plan to study other semantic groups that often appear in speech as “verbs of movement”, for example, we will not consider the transition from one thermal or chemical state to another, describe verbs of sensory perception or speaking, as well as modal verbs, etc. We We refer only to verbs that describe specific changes in the subject in space and time, and the subject of the phenomenon of movement in a broad sense is not our task in this study.
In this context, it should be noted that in this work both basic and figurative (metaphorical) meanings of polysemous verbs of motion will be considered. In the latter case, we are talking about movement not in the objective material world, but about movement within the framework of abstract concepts associated with the development of phenomena (for example, sounds, events, thoughts, movement in time, etc.)
2. The semantic structure of verbs of movement is a unity of interacting features that implement the categorical-lexical seme “movement in space” at the lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical levels.
Speaking about the lexical level, one cannot fail to note the work of cognitive science researchers who dealt with this problem: L. Talmy, Dan I. Slobin, S. Wikner, S. Selimis.
When we study verbs of motion, we look at what is encoded in them from a lexical point of view. The appearance of any verb of movement presupposes the presence of a typical situation of movement/movement. We will call the participant in such a situation subject("figure" by . The areas of space occupied by the subject when moving can be described as path(“path” [ibid., 61]). Movement occurs relative to a certain reference object, or background(“ground” [ibid., 61]). (Talmy, 1985, 62, 69)
At the lexical level, the categorical-lexical seme “movement in space” is realized in differential features expressing integral semes:
? "movement environment"
? "vehicle"
? "way of movement"
? "movement intensity".
The integral seme “environment of movement” expresses the spatial characteristics of the action and is realized in opposition to the following differential features:
? "moving on a hard surface"
? "moving on water"
? "moving through the air."
The integral seme “mode of movement” is represented in the following differential features:
? "movement, touching the surface, stepping with feet"
? "movement by contacting the surface with the whole body"
? "moving up, down, clinging with arms and legs"
? "movement by contacting the surface indirectly"
? "moving, immersing yourself in the environment"
? "moving without touching the surface"
The integral seme “means of transportation” is realized in differential features:
? "move with legs"
? "move with arms and legs"
? "movement by force of movement of the whole body"
? "moving with the help of technical vehicles or on horseback"
? "move using fins"
? "move with wings"
The integral semes “method” and “vehicle” express the qualitative characteristics of the action.
The seme “intensity of movement” expresses the spatio-temporal characteristics of the action and is specified by the following features:
? "intensity-neutral movement"
? "fast travel"
? “slow movement” [Gorban, 2002, p. 111-112].
There are other ways to classify verbs of motion at the lexical level. Thus, according to Charles Fillmore, the semantic dimensions of verbs of motion can be selected in an unlimited number of ways, but among them he identifies the following:
? “path of movement” (cf. “ascend”? to rise, “advance”? to move forward)
? “a path of movement taking into account the external environment” (cf. “climb”? to climb, “dive”? to dive, “cross”? to cross). There are three sub-clauses in this paragraph:
o “moving on the ground” (cf. “travel” - to travel, “walk” - to stroll)
o “moving on water” (cf. “swim” - to swim, “float” - to float (about a ship))
o “moving through the air” (cf. “fly”? to fly, “soar”? to soar).
Here, however, it is necessary to pay attention to the ability of verbs of movement to move from one variety to another in connection with metaphorization. (Cf. - We hovered around our guide? “we spun around our guide”, the original meaning of the verb “hover” is to soar (about birds)).
? “path of movement in relation to the starting or ending point” (cf. “arrive” - to arrive, “alight” - to dismount, “enter” - to enter).
? “Movement method” (cf. “lope” - skipping, “stride” - walking with big steps, “scurry” - running with small steps, “slog” - dragging with difficulty).
? “The sound that accompanies movement” (cf. “stump” - walk, stomping, “scuffle” - walk, shuffling your feet).
? “Participation of the body” (cf. “stride” - walk with long steps, “creep” - crawl).
? "Speed of movement" (cf. "blot" - to rush like an arrow, "hurry" - to hurry), etc. [Fillmore]
In this work, the terminology of O. A. Gorban will be used.
3. One of the ways to distinguish verbs of movement in more detail is the principle of highlighting some semantic components of their meaning. For example, the semantic structure of the analytical phrase “walk slowly” does not require special analysis: the verb of movement “walk” conveys the idea of moving on foot, and the accompanying adverb indicates a low speed of movement. While the seme structure of the synthetic verb synonymous with this analytical phrase “trudge - to walk (on foot) at low speed, with slow, heavy steps” implicitly contains several characteristics of the movement being performed.
Lexical-semantic groups of verbs of motion in various languages form a special system, which represents a specific lexical-semantic microstructure of the dictionary, in the form of one of the nodes of its hyper-hyponymic hierarchy, where the hyperseme reflects the general meaning of words, and the hyposeme indicates the specificity of a particular meaning. So, for example, all the verbs of movement that make up the system are hyponyms in relation to the hypernym “movement in space.” They differ from each other due to their hyposemes, indicating the differential characteristics of each type (for example, a specific tool? a part of the body with which movement is performed) [Nikitin, 1983, p. 94].
According to the concept of M.V. Nikitin, the meanings of verbs of motion have incorporated actants. Among them are incorporated actants-somatisms, as well as semantic features accompanying the verbal action? speed, direction, location, step ratio, etc. The intension of the lexical meaning of such verbs is represented by the hyposeme “movement of a person in space using the muscular power of the legs” and the hyposeme “mode of movement.” For example: "shuffle" ? walk without raising the feet properly, that is, to walk without raising the feet properly, almost without lifting the feet from the ground. The hyperseme often corresponds to the interpretation of “walk... the feet”, hyposemes? "without raising properly" (shuffling).
“Thus, the identification of verbs with incorporated actants is based on the categorical community of hypersemes, and the differentiation within classes occurs along the line of hyposemes” [Nikitin, 1997, p. 96].
The task of our work is to study the question of the ability of verbs of movement to combine, to incorporate deep elements into the internal structure that are able to characterize the movement being performed without the participation of context.
SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF A WORD AS A FRAGMENT OF THE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF A FIELD
S.V. Kezina
Department of Russian Language Penza State Pedagogical University named after. V.G. Belinskogo st. Popova, 18a, Penza, Russia, 440035
In the article, the semantic structure of a word is presented as a fragment of the semantic structure of a diachronic field. The semantic structure of a word can be in two system states: in the language continuum and in a certain chronological period. The relationship between the semantic structure of a polysemantic and the structure of a diachronic type field does not allow us to identify the original meaning in the polysemantic.
During the development of field theory, such a feature as structure crystallized. The structure assumes the interdependence of the system components. E. Benveniste noted: “... to treat language as a system means to analyze its structure. Since each system consists of units that mutually determine each other, it differs from other systems in the internal relationships between these units, which constitutes its structure.” The idea of interdependence of system elements was first expressed by Russian linguists - R. Jacobson, S. Kartsevsky and N. Trubetskoy in a program for the study of phonemic systems and presented to the I International Congress of Linguists in The Hague in 1928. Later, the materials were presented in theses published in Prague for the Congress of Slavists. The term “structure” appears in them for the first time. The principle of structural linguistics was transferred to all language systems, including lexical-semantic.
The structure of the semantic field has become the object of close study since the inception of field theory and is recognized as an integral feature of the lexical-semantic system. A.A. Ufimtseva, having analyzed the theories of the semantic field, wrote in 1961: “No special method has been created for the structural analysis of meaning and the entire semantic system of language, taking into account all the features of the latter even today.” Since then, the method of structural analysis
continues to develop, gradually exploring both the structure of the whole field and the semantic structure of the word as an element of the semantic field. Analysis of the semantic structure of the field and word activated the method of constructing and modeling the field and the method of component analysis.
The connections that organize the structure of the field have been studied for a long time and fruitfully; the types of these connections have been described by more than one linguist. A.A. Ufimtseva considers the semantic connections of a word at three levels to be a characteristic feature of the lexical-semantic structure: a) intra-word semantic connections (connections at the level of an individual word); b) interword connections in microsystems (semantic connections at the level of rows and groups of words); c) semantic connections at the level of the entire system (lexico-grammatical homonymy at the level of parts of speech, lexical polysemy of various structural-semantic groups of verbs).
When studying the semantic field, intraword and interword connections are primarily of interest. Consequently, the semantic structure of the field has two levels: interword and intraword. Interword connections in microsystems (in semantic fields of different volumes) are clearly defined and do not raise doubts. They show what relationships are possible between words in a semantic field and what microsystems can be identified within the field (synonyms, antonyms, hyper-hyponymic nests).
Intraword connections are more complex, and their linguistic development still does not provide answers to all questions. A particular problem for semasiologists is the structure of the polysemantic. The structure of a word is a historically changing phenomenon; it “is characterized by a hierarchical subordination of elements” [Ibid. P. 265], developed in the course of evolution. Therefore, it is logical to study it in an organic system - a semantic field of diachronic type. By the semantic structure of a word (structure of meaning) we understand a segment (fragment) of the semantic structure of a field of diachronic type, historically created, carefully selected by the language for a given chronological period, representing a set of semes actualized in a given period. A field of diachronic type is nothing more than an etymological and word-forming nest. Semes (“the smallest (ultimate) units of the plan of content that can be correlated with the corresponding units (elements) of the plan of expression”, “are generated in the process of historical development of the meaning of words.” As the minimum unit of the internal form of a word, a seme denotes an object or its distinctive feature. Speaking of semantic structure of a word, we are talking about its internal form.
As we have already noted, semasiologists pay closer attention to polysemantics. The semantic field is literally woven from polysemantics, which becomes obvious when constructing it. We are interested in connections between word meanings. M.V. Nikitin writes about them: “By distinguishing the meanings of a polysemantic word, establishing their content and comparing them in content, we are convinced that the meanings are related to each other by relations of semantic derivation, that one meaning arises from another (emphasis added -
S.K.) according to certain models of semantic formation (semantic word production) and that all of them together form the semantic structure of the word through their connections.” The author identifies in the semantic structure: 1) the original meaning, 2) the derived meaning(s). The original meaning is direct, while the derivatives are figurative. “The meanings of a polysemantic word are united by meaningful connections. These are connections of the same order as the connections of concepts. Concepts do not exist separately, but, on the contrary, are connected by multiple connections that organize them in the structure of consciousness. These connections are called conceptual connections. Since the meaningful connections of meanings are the same as conceptual connections, it is necessary to indicate the main types of the latter: implicational, classificational and symbolic (conventional, semiotic)” [Ibid. P. 69]. If implicational connections reflect real connections between objects, then classification connections reflect the commonality of their inherent characteristics. The researcher includes hypero-hyponymic, or genus-species, and similative, or metaphorical, classification connections. Without a doubt, these types of connections traditionally identified in linguistics take place in the semantic structure of the polysemantic, establishing the logic of the transition of one meaning to another, the logic of semantic transitions. However, everything is not as simple as it seems. One of the problematic issues in the study of semantic transitions within a polysemantic is the question of the primacy and secondary nature of meaning, which is widely reflected in the typology of meanings.
At M.V. Nikitin, the distribution of connections in the structure of a polysemantic is carried out according to the formula “original ^ derivative”. D.N. also talks about examples of this type. Shmelev: “Defining the “primary” and “figurative” meanings of words does not encounter any particular difficulties in cases like those cited by E. Kurilovich (donkey - I - animal, II - stupid or stubborn person), when the semantic structure of a word is determined by the presence in it a distinct semantic core and the metaphorical and metonymic branches that depend on it." Unfortunately, it is not always possible to determine the original meaning and it is not always possible to “link” the presented word meanings.
Thus, the word red in the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” by S.I. Ozhegova, N.Yu. Shvedova noted in the following meanings: 1) the color of blood, ripe strawberries, the bright color of poppy; 2) related to revolutionary activities, to the Soviet system, to the Red Army; 3) used in folk speech and poetry to denote something good, bright, light; 4) used to designate the most valuable breeds, varieties of something; 5) a supporter or representative of the Bolsheviks, their revolutionary dictatorship, a soldier of the Red Army. Analyzing the structure of this polysemantic, we see that semantic transitions can be established between the meanings of “the color of blood...” ^ “relating to revolutionary activity...” ^ “a supporter or representative of the Bolsheviks...”. But the use of a word to designate something good, bright, light and the most valuable breeds, varieties of something is in no way connected with the meaning of color or revolutionary activity.
These meanings are determined by the history of the word red, due to the development of its evaluative meanings, one of which is firmly established in the history of the Russian language - “the best in some qualities.” With a historical approach to the structure of the polysemant red, we will find implicit color meanings: for example, in other Russian. red “red, brown, red, brown, brown with a reddish tint.” By expanding the semantic space of the word red, we penetrate more deeply into the connections of this polysemantic with other fragments of the semantic field.
Another example indicates a complete (from a modern point of view) lack of connections between meanings. The meanings of the dialect word blue: “yellow” (in the color of birds), “ashy”, “smoky gray with white”, “black with white silver”, “lilac” do not follow from each other. We have before us connections that are clearly based not on semantic transitions, but, probably, on the inclusion in the semantic structure of the word sem, reflecting differential features in objects that in the past participated in the selection of an object - the standard blue color. These semes were simply added as a particular color shade became relevant. As a result of the increase in the number of semes in the history of the language, a color syncretism was created, the rudiment of which is the dialect blue. And there are many such examples. It is not easy to establish the original meaning and its connections with other meanings in polysemantics of this kind, since a polysemant is not a complete system, but only a fragment of it. Only in a complete system - a semantic field of diachronic type, which is a hierarchically organized system of semes - is it possible to search for the original meaning. The initial meaning in the diachronic field is etymon (semantic primary element, semantic archetype), i.e. the first value from which the entire semantic field is generated. Thus, the problem of the complexity of determining the primary and secondary in a polysemant is due to the fact that the polysemant itself is in certain connections with other meanings or with the structures of other polysemantics in the diachronic field. Depending on which fragment of the field is singled out into a polysemantic from the semantic structure of the field, certain connections will be highlighted in it (by which, we repeat, the fragment was connected to other parts of the field).
D.N. Shmelev denies the possibility of an original meaning within the boundaries of the polysemantic. According to the scientist, the meanings inherent in a word “are often perceived (regardless of their historical development) as “primary” (from a synchronic point of view) and figurative, arising as a result of metaphorical and metonymic transfers of names (emphasis added by us - S.K.).” HE. Trubachev, supporting the thesis of D.N. Shmelev about the impossibility of finding a common, or original, meaning in a polysemantic, points to “the burdensomeness and artificiality of the concept of semantic invariant, as well as the main, original meaning.”
During the historical development of the meaning of a word, semes are generated, the connections between which create a semantic structure. We must clearly present
Figure out how the meaning of a word and its structure manifest themselves during evolution. Based on the theory of A.A. Brudny about two semantic states of a word (systemic and situational), we propose three states of meaning and two states of its structure. In addition to the situational state (manifested during direct use in speech), meaning can exist in two systemic states (outside the situation of use): in the linguistic continuum (from etymon to the modern state) and in an explicit state (in modern languages, their dialects, in written monuments ). The difference between the two system states of meaning is that there are no missing links in the linguistic continuum, everything is in its place and interconnected. This is an abstract structure that can be constructed and in which each meaning will have its own place, although it is not always possible to find a real analogue in the actual linguistic material due to its implicitness. We call the second systemic state of meaning explicit. This is the actual linguistic material that is actually reflected in languages and can be used for analysis. The explicit is studied as a system, although in fact it is only a part of the system, and therefore must be isolated from the whole and depend on this whole. This is similar to how, when studying 2-3 related families, they want to draw a conclusion about all the genetic characteristics. The explicit state of meaning is its manifestation, the “highlighted” part of what is included in the continuum space of language. This is what was dominant in a given period of language, which means that it manifested itself and could be consolidated in written and oral speech; what was not relevant for one reason or another was not preserved in a particular language, but could be preserved in other related languages, and is implicit for a given language. Let us show two system states of value in the figure.
1) - a linguistic continuum, where each cell corresponds to a meaning (or seme), the arrow (^) indicates that the meaning continues to develop; 2) are meanings (or semes) realized in language (oral or written)
Cells with different graphics correspond to different chronological sections in the history of the language; the arrow (T) shows the change in chronological sections. Of such
an explicit systemic state of the language is formed. These “cells” do not always turn out to be a system in which certain problems can be solved. The meaning, developing, creates a structure (in a full field this is always
hierarchically organized collection of families). In the linguistic continuum, the semantic structure of a word is equal to the semantic structure of the diachronic field. The second state is the state of the semantic structure of the word in a given chronological period. In this state, the semantic structure of the word is a fragment of the semantic structure of a diachronic type field (see Fig. 2). The fragmentary (fragmentary) nature of the semantic structure of a word is the main obstacle when trying to comprehend it as a whole.
semantic structure of a word
semantic field structure
Now that we have identified the states in which meaning and structure reside, we can return to the question of what we are studying. We study part of the whole without even fully imagining the whole. And only an approach to this whole can give a more adequate idea of the genesis of meaning and will allow us to construct an elementary model of the semantic structure of the field, from which it should become clear why and how meanings change, what is the nature of a polysemantic word, what is the mechanism of development of the semantics of a word and the patterns of semantic changes.
LITERATURE
Benveniste E. General linguistics. - M.: Progress, 1974.
Ufimtseva A.A. Theories of the “semantic field” and the possibility of their application in the study of the vocabulary of a language // Questions of the theory of language in modern foreign linguistics. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961.
Ufimtseva A.A. Word in the lexical-semantic system of language. - M.: Nauka, 1968.
Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. - M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1966.
Nikitin M.V. Fundamentals of linguistic theory of meaning. - M.: Higher School, 1988.
Shmelev D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary (Based on the material of the Russian language). - M.: Nauka, 1973.
Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / RAS, Institute of Russian. language them. V.V. Vinogradova. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999.
Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages: Praslav. lex. fund / USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Russian. language; Ed. HE. Trubachev. - M.: Science, 1974-2001. - Vol. 12.
Dictionary of Russian folk dialects /AS USSR, Institute of Russian. language Words sector. - L.: Science, 1965-2002. - Vol. 6.
Trubachev O.N. Etymological research and lexical semantics // Principles and methods of semantic research. - M.: Nauka, 1976.
Brudny A.A. The meaning of words and the psychology of oppositions // Principles and methods of semantic research. - M.: Nauka, 1976.
A SEMANTIC WORD STRUCTURE AS A FRAGMENT OF A SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF A SYSTEM
Popova str., 18 “A”, Penza, Russia, 440035
A semantic word structure is presented in the article as a fragment of a semantic structure of a diachronic system. A semantic word structure may exist in two states: in a language continuity and in a definite chronological period. The correlation of the semantic structure of the polysemy with the diachronic system structure doesn’t allow to reveal the initial polysemantic meaning.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
1. Semantic structure of the word meaning
Lexical semantics is a branch of semantics that studies the meaning of a word. More precisely, lexical semantics studies the meaning of words as units of a language subsystem (also called the vocabulary of a language, or simply its dictionary, or lexicon or vocabulary) and as units of speech. Thus, the object of study in lexical semantics is the word, considered from the side of its signified.
The concept of “meaning” has different aspects and is defined differently in relation to individual areas of human activity. The common everyday understanding of “meaning” is defined, for example, as follows: “meaning is what a given object is for people in the process of everyday, aesthetic, scientific, industrial, socio-political and other activities.”
By meaning we can understand that the main category of semantics is its central concept. To determine the meaning of certain units of a sign (semiotic) system, including language, which represents “the most complete and perfect of communication systems,” this means to establish regular correspondences between certain “segments” of text and meaning that are correlative for a given unit, and to formulate rules and reveal the patterns of transition from the text to its meaning and from the meaning to the text expressing it.
The lexical meaning of a word, that is, its individual content socially assigned to it as a certain complex of sounds, is, according to a number of linguists, a kind of semantic whole, consisting, however, of interrelated and interdependent parts or components.
The lexical meaning of a word is the content of a word, reflecting in the mind and consolidating in it the idea of an object, property, process, phenomenon and the product of human mental activity; it is associated with reduction, its connections with other meanings of linguistic units in phrases and sentences, and paradigmatically - its position within the synonymous series. Syntagmatic factors, essential in clarifying the meaning of a word, are secondary in relation to the semantic aspect itself.
Lexical meaning is “a known reflection of an object, phenomenon or relationship in consciousness, included in the structure of a word as its so-called internal side, in relation to which the sound of the word acts as a material shell...”.
We can consider the following types of lexical meaning of a word:
Meaning as a specific linguistic form of a generalized reflection of extra-linguistic reality;
Meaning as a component of a lexical unit, i.e. a structural element of the lexical-semantic system of language;
Meaning as an expression of the attitude of speakers to the words (signs) used and the impact of words (signs) on people;
Meaning as an actual, specific designation, naming of an object, phenomenon (situation).
The existence of lexical-semantic variants of the same word suggests that they are not isolated, but interconnected entities, correlating in a certain way and forming a kind of unity. The systemic interconnection of different LSVs of the same word within the limits of its identity forms the basis of its semantic (or semantic) structure, which can be defined as an ordered (discovering the systemic interconnection of its elements) set of LSVs of the same word. The concept of the semantic structure of a word is interpreted very ambiguously in the linguistic literature, but it seems possible to distinguish two main directions that differ in how the elementary constitutive component of the semantic structure of a word is determined. The first group includes those understandings of the semantic structure where the main unit is the LSV, that is, a unit correlated with the individual meaning of a polysemantic word. The second direction is closely related to the method of component analysis of meaning, which sets as its task the division of the content side of a linguistic unit into its constituent components and the representation of meaning in the form of sets of elementary meanings or semantic features. These elementary or, more precisely, minimal (at a certain level of analysis) semantic components, identified in the content side of a lexeme or its individual LSV, are called seme. When composing the meaning of a word or an individual LSV word, semes act not as elements listed in any order, but as a hierarchically ordered structure, and thus we can talk about a semantic structure, the unit of structure of which will be the seme. In this case, the semantic (semantic) structure presented at the seme level can be considered both in relation to the word as a collection of LSV, and in relation to an individual LSV and, accordingly, in relation to an unambiguous word.
Considering the difference in the approach to determining the semantic structure of linguistic units, it seems that a terminological distinction should be made, calling the ordered set of its LSV the semantic structure of a word and the semantic structure of a word - the representation of the content side at the level of minimal components of meaning. Accordingly, only polysemantic words have a semantic (meaning) structure, and both polysemantic words and unambiguous lexemes and individual LSVs of polysemantic words have a semantic structure.
The most important aspect of describing the semantic structure of a word is the establishment of correlative relationships between its LSVs. There are two possible approaches here: synchronous and diachronic. With a synchronous approach, content-logical relations are established between the meanings of LSVs without taking into account outdated and outdated LSVs, which, thus, somewhat distorts the relations of semantic derivation between individual LSVs (epidigmatic relations, in the terminology of D.N. Shmelev, but in a certain sense more adequately, than with the diachronic approach, reflects the real relationship of meanings as perceived by speakers
The semantic structure of the word and the structure of the LZ differ. The first includes a set of individual variants of LZS, among which the main meanings and derivatives - portable and specialized - are distinguished. Each lexical-semantic variant is a hierarchically organized set of semes - a structure in which an integrating generic meaning (archiseme), a differentiating specific one (differential seme), as well as potential semes are distinguished, reflecting the secondary properties of an object that actually exist or are attributed to it by the collective. These semes are important for the formation of figurative meanings of words.
a) chronotopos. Formulas for temporal indications, indicating the duration of an event or phenomenon from some moment in the past to the time of the chronicler’s work, are found in the text of the PVL throughout the entire narrative. They exist in different verbal forms. The most common ones include the following: “until this day”, “until this day”, “until this day”, “until now”, “even now”, “until now”. These may be indications of the places of settlement of Slavic tribes; to the places of residence and cult burials of chronicle figures; to the locations of churches; princely sites, chambers; places for hunting. Some chronotopos contain important information on the topography of cities. The author's chronotopic remarks help to clarify the approximate time and place of the chronicler's work (indicating the ulcer of Vseslav, the time and place of burial of Anthony, Jan and Eupraxia). Many remarks, in addition to the chronotopic function, perform the function of updating the past.
b) informational remarks. This type of remarks performs the function of messages about the origin of tribes, tribal customs, the establishment of tribute to the Khazars, Varangians, Radimiches and the conquest of some Polish cities that are still under Russia; about the consequences of wars; about “shortcomings” in appearance and moral inferiority.
Some chronoconstructs are used by the chronicler to enhance some quality (usually the cowardice of enemies). They combine informative and artistic functions (hyperbolization with an element of humor: and what good do they do to this day).
c) connecting remarks. They are designed, as a rule, for the “quick-witted reader” (the expression of A.S. Demin) and serve as a reminder of previously described events (“like a rekohom”), return to the main theme of the story (“we will return to the same way”), prepare the reader to the perception of information (“still not enough”), they refer to subsequent events (“we’ll tell you later”). At the same time, they connect different fragments of the text, giving it the appearance of a coherent work. As M.Kh. correctly noted. Aleshkovsky, “these associative arches, thrown from one text to another, from maxim to maxim, the so-called cross-references, references to modern reality, hold up the entire grandiose and narrative edifice”8. Moreover, these outward and obvious manifestations clearly demonstrate the chronicler's ability to cover the totality of events. A.A. Shaikin, who did not specifically analyze the system of reservations and references in the chronicle, noted that “from them alone one could confidently conclude that the chronicler in his thinking is not at all isolated by a fragment, that he simultaneously sees, captures, connects events of different years and implements this is its own vision and connection in the text of the chronicle”9.
The author's speech transformations of phraseological units are revealed within the following basic structural and semantic changes: inversion, replacement, insertion, contamination, ellipsis, allusion, etc. Despite such a variety of types of transformations, the number of uses of phraseological units without changes in fiction exceeds the number of transformed units.
In addition to the basic techniques of changing phraseological units relating to the lexical side of a stable unit, changes in the grammatical plan are also observed in works of art.
lexical semantics word remark
3. History of the development of the concept of “image”
Imagine, imagination, image. Imagine, imagination are words inherited by the Russian literary language from the Old Church Slavonic language. The morphological composition of the word imagine shows that its original meaning was to give an image to something, to draw, depict, embody in the image of something, to realize.
Thus, the history of changes in the meanings of the verb imagine is closely connected with the semantic fate of the word image. In the language of Old Russian writing, the word image expressed a whole range of meanings - concrete and abstract:
1) appearance, appearance, external outline, shape
2) image, statue, portrait, icon, print
3) face, physiognomy;
4) rank, dignity, state characteristic of one or another social position, features of appearance and way of life;
5) sample, example;
6) symbol, sign or sign;
7) method, means,
An image is a holistic but incomplete representation of a certain object or class of objects; it is an ideal product of mental activity, which is concretized in one form or another of mental reflection: sensation, perception.
This is a fairly accurate definition of the word. A product of the psyche, which has the property of bringing the representation of an object to the plane of a perfect, complete form. All phenomena hidden behind the words of language are not fully covered by words; images try to get closer to the known properties of phenomena that a person can perceive. And science is trying to expand the experience of the integrity of the phenomenon. We have to admit that by expanding the “borders of knowledge” there are no fewer questions left than answers. At the same time, the vocabulary is much more limited than the variety of surrounding forms and phenomena, which is why the language has a huge repetition of the same words for different fields of activity.
And at the same time, even all the outgoing waves of linguistic communication can be attributed to the phenomenon - “a person talks about himself.” In the sense that what is said comes from personal perception, in connection with which, very often you have to find out: - What did you mean when you said health? Health, what is it to you? And in this social phenomenon of limited language, individuals try to express the image they have accepted behind the word, the belief, the evolution of their own consciousness. Here lies a more effective (real) influence of an individual’s example of behavior than the voiced “correct” words and advice. This is what manifests itself in “Physical Culture” as imitation and a special kind of active straight-knowledge (not with the mind), and when quick reactions of the whole organism to a changing environment are required (outdoor games, relay races, high-speed qualities of exercises...).
In addition to this, the very form of presentation of our figurative ideas is complicated by their translation through words. In addition to the meaning of the word itself, which may not be unambiguous, the word order of the composed sentences and the meaning of the general array that the author intended to convey to readers are also important. Or completely different forms of reproduction with their help are possible.
The reader himself must also be raised in the linguistic and written culture of the people whose texts he is reading, have an interest in the chosen topic and a mind of active perception, not on faith but for information.
The information itself, arranged in letter symbols, is with great difficulty capable of conveying the emotions and moods of the author invested in the text (which is expressed in the difficulties of translating works of art into different languages).
These simple experiments with the form of presentation and the meaning of transmission show additional difficulties in understanding the fruits of our imaginative thinking expressed through texts. In contrast to the international “body language”, your own behavior and example (actions and appearance), which instantly conveys the information of your momentary state without logical comprehension of it, but in any society perceived by straight-knowledge. This is confirmed by numerous popular science videos of travelers’ meetings with primitive cultures. Where there is a difference in knowledge about the world around us, it does not prevent us from quickly finding common concepts to start a dialogue. Help and respect meet help and respect, aggression and contempt meet aggression and contempt.
4. Modern dictionary definition
1) in psychology - a subjective picture of the world, including the subject himself, other people, the spatial environment and the temporal sequence of events.
The term comes from a Latin word meaning imitation, and most uses of it in psychology, both ancient and modern, revolve around this concept. Consequently, the most common synonyms for it are the concepts of similarity, copy, reproduction, duplicate. There are several important variations of this concept:
1. Optical image - the most specific use, which refers to the reflection of an object by a mirror, lens, or other optical device.
2. The broader meaning is retinal image - the (approximate) image of an object on the retina that appears point by point when light is refracted by the optical system of the eye.
3. In structuralism - one of three subclasses of consciousness; the other two: sensations and feelings. The main emphasis in this model of use was that the image should be considered as a mental representation of previous sensory experience, as its copy. This copy was thought to be less vivid than the sensory experience, still represented in consciousness as a memory of that experience.
4. Picture in your head. This common sense concept actually captures quite well the essence of the term in its most modern usage, but some caveats must be made.
a) “Picture” is not in the literal sense - there is no device, such as a slide projector/screen; rather, one should say: “as if it were a picture.” That is, imagination is a cognitive process that acts “as if” a person has a mental picture that is analogous to a scene from the real world,
b) The image is not necessarily seen as a reproduction of a previous event, but rather as a construction, a synthesis. In this sense, the image is no longer seen as a copy; for example, one might imagine a unicorn riding a motorcycle, which is unlikely to be a copy of any previously seen stimulus.
c) This picture in your head seems to be able to mentally “move” in such a way that you can imagine, for example, a unicorn riding a motorcycle towards you, away from you, in a circle.
d) The picture is not necessarily limited to visual representation, although, undoubtedly, this term is most often used in this sense. Some people claim that they even have taste and smell images. Because of these expanded interpretations, definitions are often added to the term to indicate the form of the image being discussed.
e) this pattern of use infringes on the meaning of the etymologically related term imagination.
The main models of use were given above, but there are some others:
5. A general attitude towards a certain institution, such as “the image of a country”).
6. Elements of dreams.
5. Direct and specific meaning
The world depicted in the work in all its integrity can be considered as a single image. An image is an element of a work that belongs to both its form and its content. The image is inextricably linked with the idea of the work or with the author’s position in the work. It is both a concrete, sensory representation and the embodiment of an idea.
An image is always concrete and not abstract, unlike an idea, but it does not necessarily have to evoke a definite, clear visual idea of the depicted object.
6. Assignment of concepts to a given subject area
Word - image, image - image, feeling - image are updated by associations, and also involuntarily - through the action of unconscious mechanisms. The image of the representation is projected into the sphere of consciousness. The projection of ideas into real space is a hallucination. Personal ideas are objectified and made available to others through verbal description, graphic representation and associated behavior. Motor representations pre-set a person for action and, as a standard, correct it. Through language, which introduces socially developed methods of logical operation of concepts into representation, the representation is translated into an abstract concept.
When comparing the qualitative characteristics of the image of perception and images of representation, what is striking is the vagueness, indistinctness, incompleteness, fragmentation, instability and pallor of the latter in comparison with the image of perception. These features are indeed inherent in ideas, but they are not essential. The essence of ideas is that they are generalized images of reality that preserve the most characteristic features of the world that are important for an individual or personality. At the same time, the degree of generalization of a certain representation can be different, and therefore individual and general representations are distinguished. Representations are the initial data for operating in the mind with casts of reality.
Ideas are the result of sensory knowledge of the world, experience, the property of each individual. At the same time, the image of representation is the initial form of development and deployment of the mental life of the individual. Among the regularities, the most important thing is the generality of the image, which is characteristic even of individual representations; for general ideas it is the main sign.
The sensory-objective nature of representations makes it possible to classify them according to modality - as visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, etc. Types of representations are identified, corresponding to the types of perception: representations of time, space, movement, etc. The most significant classification is the identification of representations of individual and general
Transformations of ideas play an important role in solving mental problems, especially those that require a new “vision” of the situation.
List of used literature
1. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Dictionary of conflict specialist, 2009
2. IMAGE - a subjective picture of the world or its fragments, including the subject himself, other people, space...
3. Large psychological dictionary. Comp. Meshcheryakov B., Zinchenko V. Olma-press. 2004.
4. V. Zelensky. Dictionary of analytical psychology.
5. Glossary of political psychology. -M RUDN University, 2003
6. Glossary of psychological terms. Under. ed. N. Gubina.
7. Diana Halpern. Psychology of Critical Thinking, 2000 / Terms from the book.
8. Dudiev V.P. Psychomotorics: dictionary-reference book, 2008.
9. Dushkov B.A., Korolev A.V., Smirnov B.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary: Labor psychology, management, engineering psychology and ergonomics, 2005.
10. Zhmurov V.A. Great Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, 2nd ed., 2012.
11. Applied aspects of modern psychology: terms, laws, concepts, methods / Reference publication, author-compiler N.I. Konyukhov, 1992
12. S.Yu. Golovin. Dictionary of a practical psychologist.
13. Oxford Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology/Ed. A. Rebera, 2002
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Meaning of the word. Structure of the lexical meaning of a word. Definition of meaning. Volume and content of meaning. Structure of the lexical meaning of a word. Denotative and significative, connotative and pragmatic aspects of meaning.
abstract, added 08/25/2006
Familiarization with scientific literature devoted to the semantics of lexical units in Russian linguistics. Identification of the uniqueness of the components of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word. Semantic analysis of a polysemantic word based on the word fall.
course work, added 09/18/2010
The problem of the polysemy of a word, along with the problem of the structure of its individual meaning, is the central problem of semasiology. Examples of lexico-grammatical polysemy in the Russian language. The relationship between lexical and grammatical semes when a word is polysemous.
article, added 07/23/2013
Consideration of the concept and properties of a word. Study of phonetic, semantic, syntactic, reproducible, internal linear, material, informative and other characteristics of a word in the Russian language. The role of speech in the life of modern man.
presentation, added 10/01/2014
Expression of the content plan of words in different art formats and its features in computer games. The history of interaction and coexistence of various plans for the content of the word "elf" in culture. Specifics of the lexical meaning of a word in a computer game.
course work, added 10/19/2014
Definition of direct and figurative meanings of words in Russian. Scientific terms, proper names, recently emerged words, rarely used words and words with a narrow subject meaning. Basic and derived lexical meanings of polysemantic words.
presentation, added 04/05/2012
How the spiritual life of the people is reflected in the language through the word “thank you”. All the meanings of the word "thank you", its composition, origin and use in speech. The use of words in works of fiction, its quantitative and qualitative analysis.
presentation, added 11/20/2013
Options for the definition of the word “happiness”, its meaning and interpretation according to various Russian language dictionaries. Examples of statements by famous writers, scientists, philosophers and prominent people about their understanding of happiness. Happiness is a state of human soul.
creative work, added 05/07/2011
The historical nature of the morphological structure of the word. Complete and incomplete simplification; its reasons. Enrichment of language in connection with the process of re-decomposition. Complexity and decorrelation, substitution and diffusion. A study of historical changes in word structure.
course work, added 06/18/2012
The concept as the basis for the formation of the meaning of a word, its lexical-grammatical and lexical-conceptual categories. The relationship between the concept and the meaning of words. The relationship between the lexical and grammatical meanings of words. The essence of the grammaticalization process.
The structural-semantic direction in our time is represented by several varieties: in some cases more attention is paid to structure, in others - to semantics. There is also no doubt that science strives for the harmony of these principles.
The structural-semantic direction is the next stage in the evolution of traditional linguistics, which has not stopped in its development, but has become the fundamental basis for synthesizing the achievements of various aspects in the study and description of language and speech. That is why all existing directions “grew” and “grow” on the fertile soil of traditions, “split off” from the main trunk - the main direction of development of Russian linguistics, which are the syntactic concepts of M. V. Lomonosov, F. I. Buslaev, A. A. Potebnya, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Shakhmatov, V.V. Vinogradov and others, who considered syntactic phenomena in the unity of form and content.
In traditional syntax, aspects of the study of syntactic units were not clearly differentiated, but were somehow taken into account when describing syntactic units and their classification.
In the works of representatives of the structural-semantic direction, the best traditions of Russian syntactic theory are carefully preserved and developed, enriched with new fruitful ideas developed during the single-aspect study of syntactic units.
The development of the structural-semantic direction is stimulated by the needs of teaching the Russian language, where a multidimensional, comprehensive consideration of linguistic and speech means is necessary.
Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language: Word order and actual division of sentences. - M., 1976. - P. 7
Supporters of the structural-semantic direction rely on the following theoretical principles when studying and classifying (describing) syntactic units:
- Language, thinking and being (objective reality) are interconnected and interdependent.
- Language is a historical phenomenon, constantly developing and improving.
- Language and speech are interconnected and interdependent, therefore a functional approach to the study of syntactic units - an analysis of their functioning in speech - is fundamentally important.
- The categories of language form a dialectical unity of form and content (structure and semantics, structures and meaning)
- The linguistic system is a system of systems (subsystems, levels). Syntax is one of the levels of the general language system.
- Syntactic units are multidimensional.
8. Many linguistic and speech syntactic phenomena are syncretic.
Many of these provisions are fundamental for all levels of the language system, therefore they are discussed in the courses “Introduction to Linguistics”, “General Linguistics”, “Historical Grammar of the Russian Language”, etc. However, they cannot be ignored when analyzing and describing the syntactic system.
Let us explain those provisions that are especially important for describing units of syntax.
One of them is the principle of systematic linguistic structure. All modern linguistics is permeated with the idea of systematic linguistic and speech facts. It follows from this: a) language as a system is a whole consisting of interconnected and interacting elements; b) there are not and cannot be phenomena that fall outside the system of language, phenomena outside the system.
The classics of Russian linguistics studied language as a multi-level system, noted inter-level connections and interactions. In modern linguistics, much attention is paid to the delineation of levels and their differentiation.
In the structural-semantic direction, after realizing the differentiation of levels, trends are emerging: a) to explore and describe the complex interaction of levels, their interweaving. In syntactic works, this is manifested in identifying connections between vocabulary and syntax, morphology and syntax (see the corresponding sections); b)" in syntactic works, establish a hierarchy of syntactic units: phrase, simple sentence, complex sentence, complex syntactic whole. Two approaches to the description of syntactic units are outlined: from lower to higher (the “bottom” approach), from higher to lower (the “top” approach "), Depending on the approach, different aspects of syntactic units and their different properties are revealed to the researcher.
A specific feature of the structural-semantic direction is the multidimensional study and description of language, and in particular syntactic units.1
If in traditional linguistics the extensive study of syntactic units relied heavily on the intuition of researchers, then in the structural-semantic direction the most essential features of phenomena noted within the framework of any one-aspect direction are deliberately combined.
However, it is obvious that it is difficult to take into account all single-aspect characteristics (there are too many of them!), and in many cases it is not necessary if a small number of characteristics is sufficient to determine the place of a syntactic fact in the system of others (for classification and qualification).
For linguistic and methodological purposes, the main features of syntactic units are structural and semantic.
The main criterion for the classification of syntactic units at the present stage of development of syntactic theory is recognized as structural.
Based on the dialectical unity of form and content, in which the determining factor is the content, semantics is more important, because there is not and cannot be a meaningless, “empty” form. However, only those “meanings” that are expressed (formulated) by grammatical or lexicogrammatical means are accessible to observations, generalizations, etc. Therefore, not only in structuralist directions, but also in the structural-semantic analysis of the phenomena of language and speech, the primary is the structural approach, attention to the structure, to the form of syntactic phenomena. Let us explain this with the following examples.
The distinction between two-part and one-part sentences in many cases is based only on a structural criterion (the number of main members and their morphological properties - the method of expression) is taken into account. Wed: I love music. - I love music; Someone is knocking on the window. - There is a knock on the window; Everything is quiet around. - Quiet around, etc. The semantic differences between two-part and one-part sentences are insignificant.
The selection of incomplete sentences like Father - to the window is also based on a structural criterion, since in semantic terms this sentence is complete.
The preference for a structural criterion over a semantic one when determining the volume of sentence members was shown on p. 18.
In some cases, participial and adjectival phrases and even subordinate clauses can act as semantic concretizers. For example: A life lived without serving the broad interests and objectives of society has no justification (Leskov).
And if we consistently carry out the semantic criterion for the classification of syntactic units, if we take the requirement of semantic completeness to the extreme, then the division of sentences in such cases can be presented in the form of two components, that is, the mechanism for constructing such sentences will practically not be clarified.
However, in the structural-semantic direction, the structural criterion of classification is not always consistently observed. If the structural indicators are not clear, semantics plays a decisive role. Such cases have already been considered when clarifying the connections between vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Semantics can be decisive in distinguishing the direct object and the subject (Cedar broke the hurricane), in determining the syntactic function of the infinitive (cf.: I want to write a review. - I ask you to write a review), etc. A more strict, accurate and complete definition of character syntactic phenomenon is possible only taking into account structural and semantic differences.
Methodological note. In the theoretical and practical parts of the school textbook, either structure or semantics comes to the fore. Thus, when distinguishing between two-part and one-part sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when distinguishing between varieties of one-part verbal sentences, the main criterion is semantic; when distinguishing between varieties of conjunctive complex sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when classifying non-conjunctive sentences, it is semantic. In general, the textbook is characterized by flexibility in the relationship between structural and semantic indicators in the qualification and classification of linguistic material, justified by the language and speech material.
The next feature of the structural-semantic direction is taking into account the meanings of the elements (components) of syntactic units and the relationships between them when qualifying syntactic phenomena. In traditional linguistics, the focus is on the essence of the syntactic unit itself, its properties; in structural directions the focus is on the relationships between syntactic units.
In the structural-semantic direction, both the meaning of elements and the meaning of relationships are taken into account. In the most general form, they can be defined as follows: the meaning of elements is their lexico-grammatical semantics, the meaning of relations is the meaning that is found in one element of the system in relation to another.
The elements (components) of phrases are the main and dependent words, of simple sentences - members of the sentence (word forms), of complex sentences - their parts (simple sentences), of a complex syntactic whole - simple and complex sentences.
Let us show the difference between the meaning of relations and the meaning of elements by comparing the semantics of the following phrases: sawing wood and sawing wood. In the structural approach, the meaning of these phrases is considered to be object relations. With a structural-semantic approach, the meanings of these phrases differ: sawing wood - “the action and the object to which the action is transferred”; sawing wood is “a objectified action and an object to which the action passes.”
Synthesis of the meaning of elements and the meaning of relationships makes it possible to more accurately determine the semantics of the phrase as a whole than with a structural characteristic, when only the meaning of the second element is noted, which is interpreted as the meaning of the phrase.
The distinction between the meanings of relations and the meanings of elements explains the reasons for the dual qualification of the semantics of phrases, which is observed in modern works on syntax: cloudy day - attributive relations and “an object and its attribute”; to chop with an ax - object relations and “action and instrument of action,” etc. The first definitions of meaning are more typical for modern syntactic theories of the structural direction, the second - for the structural-semantic direction.
The meaning of relationships can correspond to the meaning of elements (golden autumn, snowy winter, etc.), and can introduce additional “meanings” into the semantics of elements: the meaning of an object,
places, etc. (rain and snow, road in the forest, etc.), can change the meaning of elements (seashore, birch leaves, etc.).
The semantic relationships between sentences in a complex sentence are determined not only by the grammatical, but also by the lexical semantics of the combined sentences. So, in the sentences I am sad: there is no friend with me (Pushkin) and I am cheerful: my friend is with me, the very possibility of temporary and cause-and-effect relationships is determined by both lexical and grammatical semantics. Here, for example, goal values are impossible, since the typical meaning of the first sentence (state) does not allow combination with a sentence having a goal value.
Between the sentences I love tea and It will rain soon, semantic connections cannot be established due to the incompatibility of the lexical semantics of these sentences.
It is obvious that the grammatical semantics of complex sentences is not necessary in itself, but as the background that allows sentences to be “collised” in such a way as to complicate their lexical semantics with additional meanings and to reveal their content reserves. For example: Teacher, raise a student so that he has someone to learn from later (Vinokurov). The semantics of this complex sentence as a whole is not a simple sum of the “meanings” of individual sentences. The message of the first part becomes deeper and more acute when it is supplemented with an indication of the purpose, revealed by a subordinate clause. The informative content of this complex sentence undoubtedly includes the lexical and grammatical meanings of the elements (main and subordinate clauses) and the meaning of the relationships between them. Analysis of the semantics of phrases and complex sentences, taking into account the meanings of elements and relationships, shows that the specificity of the elements of syntactic units is most fully and accurately revealed in the connections and relationships between them.
The next feature of the structural-semantic direction, organically connected with the first two, is attention to the phenomena of transition (syncretism), which are found at all levels of language and speech, when studying language in any aspect.
Syntactic units have a complex of differential features, among which the main ones are structural and semantic. For convenience of description, syntactic units are systematized (classified), and types, subtypes, varieties, groups, etc. of syntactic phenomena are identified, which in turn have a set of differential features.
The orderliness of classifications is disrupted by syntactic phenomena that combine the properties of different classes in the synchronous system of language. They qualify as transitional (syncretistic). Interacting syntactic phenomena can be represented in the form of intersecting, partially overlapping circles, each of which has its own center (core) and periphery (see the diagram below).
The center (core) includes syntactic phenomena typical for a particular classification rubric, which have a maximum concentration of differential features and a complete set of them. On the periphery there are syntactic phenomena that lack or are not clearly expressed any differential features characteristic of the center. The shaded segment is the area of intermediate formations, which are characterized by a balance of combined differential features.
The different relationships between the properties of compared syntactic phenomena can be shown using a transitivity scale, placing it in intersecting circles.
The end points of the scale A and B indicate comparable syntactic units and their varieties, between which in the synchronous system of language, especially speech, there is an infinite number of transitional (syncretic) links that “flow” into one another. For ease of presentation, we reduce the number of transition links to three, highlighting them as key points and milestones.
Ab, AB, aB are transitional connecting stages, or links, reflecting the interaction between correlative syntactic phenomena. Transitional links include facts of language and speech that synthesize differential features A and B.
Syncretic phenomena are heterogeneous in the proportion of combining properties: in some cases there are more characteristics of type A, in others properties of type B predominate, in others there is an approximate balance of combining properties (AB). Therefore, syncretic phenomena are divided into two groups: peripheral (Ab and aB) and intermediate (AB). The boundary between typical syntactic phenomena passes in the AB zone. The transitivity scale allows you to clearly show fluctuations in the proportion of combined differential characteristics.
The presence of a transition zone between typical units (A and B) connects the units of syntax, and especially their varieties, into a system and makes the boundaries between them fuzzy and unclear. L. V. Shcherba wrote: ... we must remember that only extreme cases are clear
teas Intermediate ones in the original source itself - in the minds of the speakers - turn out to be hesitant and indefinite. However, this is something unclear and wavering and should most of all attract the attention of linguists."
A complete understanding of the system of syntactic structure of the Russian language cannot be given by studying only typical cases characterized by a “bundle” of differential features. It is necessary to study the interaction and mutual influence of syntactic units, taking into account transitional (syncretic) links that reflect in the synchronous system of a language the richness of its capabilities and the dynamics of its development. To ignore syncretic phenomena means to reduce and impoverish the object of study. Without taking into account syncretic formations, a deep and comprehensive classification of syntax units is impossible. Transitions (overflows) without sharp dividing lines are observed between all units of syntax and their varieties.
Transitional phenomena not only take place in one system (subsystem, etc.) of a language, but also connect its different levels, reflecting the interaction between them. As a result, even with level differentiation, syncretic facts (intermediate and peripheral) are discovered, which are interpreted as interlevel.
Thus, both levels and aspects are interpenetrable.
Among the many factors that determine the phenomena of transitivity, we note three: 1) the combination of features characterizing various syntactic units due to their level nature; 2) the combination of features characterizing syntactic phenomena due to their multifaceted nature; 3) combination of features due to the overlap (synthesis) of element values and relationship values. We illustrate the points made.
We illustrate the synthesis of differential properties of basic syntactic units belonging to different levels of the syntactic subsystem with the following examples, among which Ab, AB and aB are the zone of transitional cases between a complex sentence and a simple, complicated introductory word:
A - Everyone knows that he is a young man.
Ab - It is known that he is a young man.
AB - It is known: he is a young man.
a B - It is known that he is a young man.
B - He is known to be a young man.
We will show the discrepancy between the semantic and formal structure as a consequence of the multidimensional nature of syntactic units using the following example: I love a thunderstorm in early May... (Tyutchev). Some scientists consider such proposals as one-part definitely-personal, while others consider them two-part with incomplete implementation of the structural scheme. The dual qualification of such proposals is due to the multi-aspect approach to their analysis. If we take semantic properties alone as the basis for the classification (there is an agent - a logical subject and an action - a predicate), then this sentence must be qualified as two-part; if we take into account only the structural properties, then this proposal must be qualified as one-component; If both are taken into account, then such a proposal should be interpreted as transitional (intermediate) between two-part and one-part ones. On the transitivity scale, such a sentence falls into the shaded segment.
We will show the synthesis of differential features due to the superposition of element values and relationship values using the following example: The path in the forests is kilometers of silence and calm (Paustovsky). In the phrase path in the forests, the lexical and grammatical meaning of the place of the word form in the forests is complicated by the meaning of the definition (cf. forest path).
From all that has been said, the conclusion follows: it is necessary to distinguish between typical syntactic units and their varieties, which have a full set of differential features, and transitional (syncretic) phenomena with a combination of features. Both for syntactic research and for teaching practice, it is extremely important not to strive to “squeeze” syncretic phenomena into the Procrustean bed of typical cases, but to allow variations in their qualification and classification, and to note combining properties. This will allow us to overcome dogmatism in teaching practice, and in theoretical research it will lead to a freer, more flexible and deeper interpretation of syntactic phenomena.
Methodological note. In school syntax, the possibility of asking several questions to the same member of a sentence is noted (see note on pp. 64, 72, etc.). Attention to ambiguous members of a sentence not only expands the range of students’ knowledge, but also contributes to the development of their linguistic sense, cognitive activity, thinking and speech. However, at school, polysemous members of a sentence should not be the focus of study, although the teacher should know about their existence so as not to demand an unambiguous answer where a double interpretation is possible.