Structural-semantic classification. Its principles

1. The concept of the word. Semantic structure of a word.

2. Classifications of words. Vocabulary as a system.

3. Non-discrete units of vocabulary.

Word concept. Semantic structure of a word

A word (lexeme) is the central unit of language. The vocabulary of a language is called vocabulary, and the section that studies it is called lexicology. It is divided into onomasiology And semasiology.

Onomasiology– a branch of lexicology that studies the vocabulary of a language, its nominative means, types of vocabulary units of a language, methods of nomination.

Semasiology– a branch of lexicology that studies the meaning of vocabulary words in a language, types of lexical meanings, and the semantic structure of words.

Depending on the originality of lexemes and compound names, such lexicological disciplines are distinguished as phraseology, terminology, onomastics(the science of proper names). Closely related to lexicology etymology– the science of the origin of words and expressions and lexicography as a theory for compiling different types of dictionaries. Word– the basic structural-semantic unit of language, which serves to name objects, properties, phenomena and relations of reality, possessing a set of semantic, phonetic and grammatical features.

Characteristic features of the word:

1. integrity

2. indivisibility

3. free reproducibility in speech

The word contains:

1. phonetic structure (organized set of sound

phonetic phenomena, forming the sound shell of a word)

2. morphological structure (the set of morphemes included in it)

3. semantic structure (set of meanings in the content of a word)

All words included in a particular language form its vocabulary (lexicon, lexicon).

The word has many definitions. One of the more successful prof. Golovin:

Word- the smallest semantic unit of language, freely reproduced in speech to construct statements.

By this definition, the word can be distinguished from phonemes And syllables, which are not semantic units, from morphemes, not reproduced in speech freely, from phrases consisting of 2 or more words.

Any word included in 3 main types of relationships:

1. relationships to objects and phenomena of reality;

2. attitudes towards the thoughts, feelings, desires of the person himself;

3. relationships to other words.

In linguistics these types of relationships are called:

1. denotative (from a word through its meaning to an object)

2. significative (from a word through its meaning to a concept)

3. structural (relational) (from word to another word)

In accordance with the specified types of relations, the functions of the word are determined:

● denotative function– allows a word to denote an object;

● significative function- allows the word to participate in the formation and expression of concepts;

● structural function- allows a word to join various rows and groups of words.

Concept(denotation) – reflects the most general and at the same time the most significant features of an object and phenomenon.

The denotative (from the Latin denotatum - marked, designated), or objective, component correlates the word with one or another phenomenon of reality: objects, qualities, relationships, actions, processes, etc. The object designated by the word is called denotation, or referent (from Latin to refer - to refer, to relate to)

Denotations- these are images of real or imaginary objects or phenomena, embodied in verbal form. Through denotations, words correlate with real (man, tree, dog, cat) or imaginary (mermaid, dragon, brownie) realities.

Meaning (significat)- the highest level of reflection of reality in human consciousness, the same level as the concept. The meaning of a word reflects the general and at the same time essential characteristics of an object, learned in the social practice of people.

Significative(from Latin significatum - denoted) the meaning component correlates the word with the concept it denotes. A significat is a concept embodied in verbal form. The concept itself is defined as a thought that, in a generalized form, reflects objects and phenomena by recording their properties, characteristics and relationships. Conceptual thinking is carried out with the help of special mental operations - analysis and synthesis, identification and differentiation, abstraction and generalization, which receive verbal form in language. Any concept always corresponds to a large volume, the content of which is revealed not with the help of one word, but with a detailed description. A word only captures a certain set of features characteristic of a certain concept. So, the signifier of the word river contains in its meaning the conceptual characteristics of a river as “a natural significant and continuous water flow flowing in the channel developed by it.”

Word classifications. Vocabulary as a system

The vocabulary of a particular language includes hundreds of thousands of words, but the vocabulary of a language is characterized not only by the quantity, but also by the quality of its constituent units, which simultaneously have typical and specific features. The properties and differences of language units help to classify them on various grounds.

By nomination method There are 4 types of words:

● independent (full-valued, directly denoting fragments of reality). These are: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, numerals.

● official (do not have sufficient independence to be used independently). They form one member of a sentence together with an independent word (prepositions, articles), or connect words (conjunctions), or replace structurally and functionally other words (substitute words);

● pronominal words (denote objects indirectly);

● interjections (they denote phenomena of reality and a person’s reaction to them in an undifferentiated manner, and therefore do not have grammatical formalization).

Based on impact, i.e. the words differ phonetically:

● single-impact (eg table);

● multi-impact (railway);

● unstressed (eg, aka).

Morphologically the words differ:

● changeable and unchangeable;

● simple, derivative, complex (move, walk, lunar rover).

By motivation:

● motivated (environment, cuckoo (because it cuckoos), carpenter (because it makes tables));

● unmotivated (flour, beam, bread).

By vocabulary usage:

● active (common and very common words);

● passive (it consists of words that are rarely used, or are not used at all for a given era).

Historically, the language is continuously updated, with:

1 .new words appear – neologisms(satellite, lunar rover). Neologisms that are individual are also called speech occasionalisms (egologisms). For example, Mayakovsky’s original new formations;

2 .words that have become unnecessary go into the passive stock - archaisms - establishment of words displaced from active use (stable, howl neck, verb - word) and historicisms- outdated words denoting the realities and concepts of previous eras (potbelly stove), which have now emerged from the everyday life of the people;

3 .famous words acquire new meaning(pioneer - pioneer, pioneer - member of a pioneer organization).

From point of view areas of use vocabulary happens:

● unlimited (typical for oral and written speech);

● limited (may be territorially limited - dialect, social - professional, slang)

WITH stylistic (connotative) positions highlight:

● neutral vocabulary

● technical vocabulary

● political vocabulary

● official vocabulary - business

Based on the semantic connections between words, they distinguish:

1. synonyms(words that are similar in meaning, but differ in form (eyes, eyes, pupils, peepers, flashing lights, zenki, balls, as well as the organ of vision). Synonyms are synonymous series. In a synonymous series there is always a word that expresses the “pure” meaning of a given synonymous series without any additional shades, without emotional coloring; it is called indifferent;

2. antonyms(words that are opposite in meaning and differ in form (top - bottom, white - black, speak - remain silent);

3. homonyms(words similar in form, but different in meaning). Homonyms are words that are the same in sound and written form (onion - plants and onion - weapon). However, in this case, a discrepancy between pronunciation and spelling is possible, and on this basis there arise homophones And homographs.

Homophones are different words that, although different in spelling, are the same in pronunciation. For example, rus.: onion and meadow, take (I’ll take) and take (I’ll take), German: Saite – string and Seite – side. A significant number of homophones are found in French and especially in English: write - write and right - direct, directly; meat - meat and meet - to meet.

Homographs are different words that have the same spelling, although they are pronounced differently. For example, Russian: castle - castle; English: tear - tear and tear - to tear.

4. paronyms(words that differ in both form and meaning, but not significantly). For example, Russian: protect – beware, him: gleich – glatt – flach – platt; English: bash – mash – smash (hit, break) – crash (collapse) – dash (throw) – lash (lash) – rash (throw) – brash (break) – clash (push) – plash (splash) – splash (splash) ) – flash (flicker).

By source of origin:

● native vocabulary

● borrowed vocabulary (from the French language album)

Every developed language has its own dictionaries - thesauri. In addition to general dictionaries that have an alphabetical structure, ideographic dictionaries are also known, where words are classified into classes of concepts. The first ideographic dictionary of the modern type was “Thesaurus of English words and expressions” by P.M. Roger, published in London in 1852. The entire conceptual field of the English language was divided into 4 classes - abstract relations, space, matter and spirit (mind), each class is divided into types, each type into groups: there are only 1000 of them. Large dictionaries are called academic (or thesauri).

Development of the lexical meaning of a word

Polysemy. Most words in a language have not one, but several meanings that appeared in the process of long historical development. Yes, noun pear means: 1) fruit tree; 2) the fruit of this tree; 3) an object shaped like this fruit. Often words have up to 10-20 meanings. Four-volume academic “Dictionary of the Russian language” in the word go notes 27 meanings in a word case - 15 meanings, in words burn, give - 10 values each, etc. Polysemy is also characteristic of other languages of the world. For example, English do‘to do, to carry out’ has 16 meanings, French а11еr ‘ to go somewhere, to move in one way or another’ has 15 meanings, German commen‘to come, to arrive’ - 6, Czech povoleni, Polish nastawiazh‘set, install’ - at least 5 values each, etc. The ability of a word to have multiple meanings is called polysemy, or polysemy(from Greek holysēmos- polysemantic). Words with at least two meanings are called polysemantic or polysemantic.

Metaphor(from the Greek metaphorá - transfer) is the transfer of a name from one object to another based on the similarity of certain characteristics: shape, size, quantity, color, function, location in space, impression and sensation. The main mechanism for the formation of a metaphor is comparison, so it is no coincidence that a metaphor is called a hidden, abbreviated comparison. For example, based on the metaphorical connection between the meanings of a noun nose there is a similarity in shape and location in space: 1) part of a person’s face, an animal’s muzzle; 2) bird's beak; 3) the part of a teapot or jug protruding in the form of a tube; 4) the front part of a ship, aircraft, etc.; 5) cape

Metonymy(from Greek metōnymia - renaming) - transfer of names from one subject to another according to contiguity. Unlike metaphor, metonymy does not imply any similarity between the designated objects or phenomena. It is based on close and easily understood contiguity, contiguity in space or time, involvement in one situation of designated realities, persons, actions, processes, etc.

For example: porcelain ‘ mineral mass of high-grade clay with various impurities’ and porcelain ‘ dishes, various products made from such mass’; audience ' a room intended for reading lectures, reports’ and audience ' listeners of lectures, reports’; evening ‘ time of day’ and evening' meeting, concert’, etc.

Synecdoche(from the Greek synekdochē - co-impliation, expression by hint) - this is a transfer of meaning when the name of a part is used in the meaning of the whole, a smaller one - in the meaning of a larger one, and vice versa. Synecdoche is often considered a type of metonymy. However, its significant difference from metonymy is that synecdoche is based on a quantitative sign of the relationship between direct and figurative meanings. Synecdoche is based on the relationship of objects and phenomena that are characterized by unity, integrity, but differ in quantitative terms: one is part of the other, that is, one member of the relationship will always be general, broader, and the other - private, narrower. Synecdoche covers a significant amount of vocabulary and is characterized by fairly stable relationships. The transfer of meaning can be carried out according to the following characteristics: 1) part of the human body - a person: beard, long hair, head- a man of great intelligence, muzzle - a person with an ugly, rude face; 2) item of clothing - person: ran after everyone skirt; Little Red Riding Hood, pea coat - spy of the Tsar's secret police; 3) tree or plant - its fruits: plum, cherry, pear; 4) plant, grain - their seeds: wheat, oats, barley, millet; 5) animal - its fur: beaver, fox, sable, nutria etc.

To replace forbidden words, other words were used, which in linguistics were called euphemisms. Euphemism(from the Greek euphēmismos - I speak politely) - this is a substitute, permitted word, used instead of a taboo, prohibited one. A classic example of a hunting euphemism is the various designations for a bear in the Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic languages. The original Indo-European name for this animal is preserved in Latin as ursus, in French as ours, in Italian as orso, in Spanish as oso, etc. Slavic, Baltic and Germanic languages lost this name, but retained euphemisms for bear: German Bär - brown, Lithuanian lokys - slime, Russian the bear is the one who eats honey, extinct Prussian clokis -grumpy. Euphemisms could be like new words (cf. Russian bear), yes and old ones, already known to the language, but used with a new meaning. Classification is very important according to semantic and grammatical indicators(parts of speech).

§ 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 talking 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, lexical-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.”

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 the synthesis of 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 multi-aspect, voluminous consideration of linguistic and speech means is necessary.

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 that is 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 system of language. Syntactic units form a level subsystem.
Syntactic units are multidimensional.
The properties of syntactic units are manifested in syntactic connections and relationships.
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 and noted inter-level connections and interactions.

In modern linguistics, much attention is paid to the delimitation 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 the vocabulary of 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, the researcher discovers different aspects of syntactic units and their different properties.

A specific feature of the structural-semantic direction is the multi-aspect study and description of language, and in particular syntactic units.

If in traditional linguistics the extensive study of syntactic units relied largely 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 consciously combined.

However, it is obvious that it is difficult to take into account all one-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 current 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 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 lexico-grammatical 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 one-part sentences are insignificant.

The identification of incomplete sentences like Father - to the window is also based on a structural criterion, since in semantic terms this sentence is complete.

In some cases, participial and adjectival phrases and even subordinate clauses can act as semantic concretizers. For example: A life spent 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 classification criterion 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 of decisive importance 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 want to hang a review), etc. A more strict, accurate and complete definition of the nature of the syntactic phenomena is possible only taking into account structural and semantic differences.

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.

B.B.Babaytseva, L.Yu.Maksimov. Modern Russian language - M., 1987.

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 a 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

...

Structural-semantic classification. Its principles

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents