Each significant unit of language is a two-sided entity, a unity of form and content. Not every sound complex can be called a word: called, purred. Tyltil– in the Russian language a meaningless set of sounds, and in the Chernigov dialect of the Ukrainian language – ‘the moment that has just passed’ (this very minute). From a poem by I. Tokmakova: And I came up with a word, A simple word - “plim”... So Plim jumps and gallops, plim, plim And Plim doesn’t mean anything... Thus, a word must have content - its lexical meaning. The meaning of a word depends not only on its relationship with the phenomena of reality, but also on its relationship with the lexical system of the language as a whole.
The semantic structure of a word is its semantic structure.
To determine the structure of the meaning of a word, it is necessary to establish from which elements it is composed. For example, when determining the structure of the meaning of a word grandson The following elements can be distinguished: ‘blood relative’, ‘direct lineal relative’, ‘relative through a generation’, ‘male relative’. In the meaning of an adjective high there is an indication that it is: a) ‘possessing extension in space’; b) ‘possessing a significant extent, i.e. located above some midline’; c) ‘located in the vertical direction’; d) ‘directed upward’; e) ‘neutral in expressive and stylistic coloring’.
Components of the meaning of a word, or its semantic features ( semes) are not equivalent. Some indicate the main element in the meaning of the word, others clarify and differentiate the meaning. Components of the first type can be called basic, the second - differential.
When the meaning of a word changes, changes occur in its semantic structure: some components of the meaning are weakened, others, on the contrary, are activated and brought to the fore. So, adjective high, used in combination with nouns harvest, level, pace and so on, takes on the meaning ‘large, significant’, i.e. the main component of the meaning ‘extended in space’ is neutralized, and the differential one, indicating the degree of extension (‘significant, above average’), becomes the main one. In this case, the component of a positive assessment, hidden and not clearly visible in the literal meaning of the word, becomes distinct and comes to the fore.
The semantic structure of an unambiguous word comes down to its semantic composition.
The complexity of the semantic structure of a word determines the possibility of developing new meanings as a result of changes in the structure of the meaning, in the relationship of its semantic components. Words take on multiple meanings.
The semantic structure is manifested in its polysemy as the ability, with the help of internally related meanings, to name (designate) various objects (phenomena, properties, qualities, relationships, actions and states). The simplest unit (element) of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word is its lexical-semantic variant ( LSV– Al-dr. Iv. Smirnitsky), i.e. lexical meaning associated with other lexical meanings by certain relationships. In the semantic structure of a word, lexical-semantic variants are related to each other due to the commonality of the internal form, mutual motivation, and deducibility from each other. The connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word is felt by speakers and is based on the fact that these meanings have a common part - the same semantic features - semes. Therefore, the meanings of a polysemantic word are motivated and can be explained one through the other. For example, in the word stroller 3 meanings are distinguished: 1) ‘four-wheeled spring carriage with a convertible top’; 2) ‘a small hand cart for riding children’; 3) ‘small cart, special purpose cart’ (motorcycle with sidecar). These meanings are closely related to each other: the second and third arose on the basis of the first by similarity of function.
Therefore, in dictionaries, each preceding LSV determines the interpretation of the subsequent one. For example, circle 1) “part of the plane bounded by a circle, as well as the circle itself”; 2) “an object in the shape of a circle” ( rescue, rubber circle); 3) “a closed area within the delineated boundaries of which something occurs and develops” ( range of responsibilities, interests, issues); 4) “a group of people united by common interests and connections” ( circle of acquaintances, friends; in your circle); 5) “a social set of persons primarily engaged in intellectual, creative work” ( wide circles of the public, literary, journalistic circles; about diplomatic circles: among scientists, specialists) etc. Here, hierarchically, the main LSV is 1), in the content of which the internal form is most manifested; all other LSV words are metaphorically connected with this LSV (by similarity of form) circle. At the same time, the idea of a circle is present in the interpretation of the meanings of all LSV words and internally connects them into a single whole.
The basis for distinguishing the main and private meanings (or otherwise: the main and private LSV) is the different nature of interaction with the context, i.e. a fragment of text necessary and sufficient to determine a particular meaning of a word. The main meaning is least determined by the context. The word in the main (first in dictionaries) meaning is semantically the simplest in its content (cf. water"transparent colorless liquid") and therefore has the widest and freest compatibility with other lexical units. All other meanings of the word (its LSV) act as private ones. In particular meanings, compared to the main word, the word is determined to a much greater extent by the context, adds its elements to itself and is therefore semantically more complex (for example, water 2) “mineral, carbonated, fruit drink”, i.e. water + containing mineral salts; saturated with gas; prepared from fruits), and is characterized by limited, selective compatibility: mineral, seltzer, carbonated, fruit water.
Along with the usual dictionary meanings (main, particular) in the semantic structure of a word, the general meaning stands out as its invariant: this is a coinciding part of the content of all meanings (LSV) of the word, something constant, unchangeable in them. It is extremely generalized and semantically simple in content and represents a linguistic abstraction useful for the semantic analysis of linguistic units.
In the semantic structure, certain meanings (LSV) may die out. For example, the meaning of “beautiful” in an adjective of common Slavic origin red(cf. Red Square) was historically the original, the main thing in the word, formed from the same stem as the word beauty. In the meaning of color the word red began to be used later, in the era of the separate existence of the Eastern Slavs. languages. This meaning became the main one in the semantic structure of the word, leading to its partial restructuring. At the same time, the semantic structure of the word is constantly enriched with new meanings, because a word is a unit of an “open” lexical system, for example. meaning “a person who swims in open water in winter” in the word walrus(cf. walrus section), "an effective attacking player in football, hockey" in the word bombardier(cf. top scorer of the season) and etc.
§ 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.”
§ 5. Basic structural-semantic types of words
Already from the proposed description of the word it is clear that the structural-semantic types of words are heterogeneous and that this heterogeneity in the structure of words depends most of all on the nature of the combination and interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings. Semantic types of words are not placed on the same plane. Strengthened in Russian grammar since the 18th century. The division of words into significant and auxiliary is interesting as a symptom of awareness of the structural heterogeneity of different types of words.
Seven distinctive features of function words
Seven distinctive features of function words were noted:
1) inability to make separate nominative uses;
2) inability to independently spread a syntagm or phrase (for example, the conjunction and, the relative word of which, the prepositions on, with, etc., are incapable on their own, regardless of other words, of either constructing or spreading a phrase or syntagm);
3) the impossibility of a pause after these words in speech (without special expressive justification);
4) morphological indivisibility or semantic indecomposability of most of them (cf., for example, at, with, after all, here, etc., on the one hand, and because, so that, then that, although, etc. - with another);
5) inability to bear phrasal stress (except in cases of opposition by contrast);
6) lack of independent stress on most of the primitive words of this type;
7) the originality of grammatical meanings, which dissolve the lexical content of function words.
This division of words into significant and auxiliary words under different names - lexical and formal words (Potebnya), complete and partial (Fortunatov) - was adopted in all works on Russian grammar. Along with these two general categories of words in the Russian language, researchers have long identified a third category - interjections.
The traditional solution to the question of the main semantic and grammatical classes of words are different doctrines of parts of speech. But these teachings - for all their diversity - do not take into account the general structural differences between the main types of words. All parts of speech are placed in the same plane. V. A. Bogoroditsky wrote about this: “... it is necessary to pay attention to the subordination of some parts of speech to others, which is usually ignored in school grammars, and all parts of speech are placed on the same line” (75).
The identification of parts of speech should be preceded by the definition of the main structural and semantic types of words.
The classification of words must be constructive. She cannot ignore any aspect of the word structure. But, of course, lexical and grammatical criteria (including phonological ones) must play a decisive role. In the grammatical structure of words, morphological peculiarities are combined with syntactic ones into an organic unity. Morphological forms are settled syntactic forms. There is nothing in morphology that is not or has not previously been in syntax and vocabulary. The history of morphological elements and categories is the history of shifting syntactic boundaries, the history of the transformation of syntactic breeds into morphological ones. This displacement is continuous. Morphological categories are inextricably linked with syntactic ones. In morphological categories, constant changes in relationships occur, and impulses, impulses for these transformations come from syntax. Syntax is the organizational center of grammar. Grammar, immanent in a living language, is always constructive and does not tolerate mechanical divisions and dissections, since the grammatical forms and meanings of words are in close interaction with lexical meanings.
Basic grammatical-semantic categories of words
Analysis of the semantic structure of a word leads to the identification of four main grammatical-semantic categories of words.
1. First of all, the category of words-names, according to the traditional definition, is highlighted. All these words have a nominative function. They reflect and embody in their structure objects, processes, qualities, signs, numerical connections and relationships, adverbial and qualitative-circumstantial definitions and relationships of things, signs and processes of reality and are applied to them, point to them, designate them. Words-names are also accompanied by words that are equivalents and sometimes substitutes for names. Such words are called pronouns. All these categories of words form the main lexical and grammatical fund of speech. Words of this type form the basis of syntactic units and unities (phrases and sentences) and phraseological series. They serve as the main members of a sentence. They can - each separately - constitute a whole statement. Words belonging to most of these categories are grammatical and combined complexes, or systems of forms. Different forms or modifications of the same word are associated with different functions of the word in the structure of speech or utterance.
Therefore, when applied to these classes of words, the term “parts of speech” is especially appropriate. They form the subject-semantic, lexical and grammatical foundation of speech. These are “lexical words”, according to Potebnya’s terminology, and “full words”, according to Fortunatov’s qualifications.
2. Parts of speech are opposed by particles of speech, connectives, and function words. This structural-semantic type of words is devoid of a nominative function. It is not characterized by “subject relatedness”. These words relate to the world of reality only through and through the words-names. They belong to the sphere of linguistic semantics that reflects the most general, abstract categories of existential relations - causal, temporal, spatial, target, etc. They are closely related to the technology of language, complicating and developing it. Connective words are not “material”, but formal. In them, the “material” content and grammatical functions coincide. Their lexical meanings are identical to grammatical ones. These words lie on the border of dictionary and grammar and at the same time on the border of words and morphemes. That is why Potebnya called them “formal words”, and Fortunatov called them “partial”.
3. The third type of words is noticeably different from the two previous structural types. These are modal words. They also lack a nominative function, like connective words. However, many of them do not belong to the same extent as connective and function words to the field of formal linguistic means. They are more "lexical" than connective words. They do not express connections and relationships between members of the sentence. Modal words seem to be wedged in or included in a sentence or lean against it. They express the modality of the message about reality or are the subjective-stylistic key of speech. They express the sphere of assessments and points of view of the subject on reality and on the methods of its verbal expression. Modal words mark the inclination of speech towards reality, conditioned by the point of view of the subject, and in this sense they are partly close to the formal meaning of verbal moods. As if introduced into a sentence or attached to it, modal words appear outside of both parts of speech and particles of speech, although in appearance they may resemble both.
4. The fourth category of words leads into the sphere of purely subjective - emotional-volitional expressions. Interjections belong to this fourth structural type of words, if we give this term a slightly broader meaning. The intonation, melodic peculiarities of their form, the lack of cognitive value in them, their syntactic disorganization, the inability to form combinations with other words, their morphological indivisibility, their affective coloring, their direct connection with facial expressions and expressive gestures sharply separate them from other words. They express the emotions, moods and volitional expressions of the subject, but do not designate or name them. They are closer to expressive gestures than to naming words. Whether interjections form sentences remains controversial (76). However, it is difficult to deny the meaning and designation of “sentence equivalents” behind interjection expressions.
So, four main structural and semantic categories of words in the modern Russian language are outlined:
1) words-names, or parts of speech,
2) connective words, or particles of speech,
3) modal words and particles,
4) interjections.
Apparently, in different styles of book and colloquial speech, as well as in different styles and genres of fiction, the frequency of use of different types of words is different. But, unfortunately, this issue is still only in the preparatory stage of examining the material.
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.