Structural-semantic classification. Its principles

Word– the basic structural-semantic unit of language, serving to name objects and their properties, phenomena, relations of reality, possessing a set of semantic, phonetic and grammatical features specific to each language. The following structures are distinguished in a word: phonetic (an organized set of sound phenomena that form the sound shell of a word), morphological (a set of morphemes), semantic (a set of meanings of a word).

Semantic structure of a word– an ordered set of interconnected elements, forming some generalized model in which lexical-semantic options are opposed to each other and characterized relative to each other.

Lexico-semantic variant (LSV)– a two-sided unit, the formal side of which is the sound form of the word, and the content side is one of the meanings of the word.

Words that have only one meaning are represented in the language by one lexical-semantic variant, polysemantic words - by a number of lexical-semantic variants corresponding to the number of its different meanings.

An analysis of the meaning of a word shows that words usually have more than one meaning. Words that have one meaning, i.e. monosemantic, relatively little. These usually include scientific terms, for example: hydrogen, molecule. Most English words are ambiguous words. The more often a word is used, the more meanings it has. For example, the word table has at least 9 meanings in modern English: 1) a piece of furniture; 2) the persons seated at the table; 3) sing. The food put on the table, meals; 4) a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.; 5) pl. slabs of stone; 6) words cut into them or written on them (the ten tables– ten Commandments); 7) an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.; 8) part of a machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on; 9) a level area, a plateau. Words that have multiple meanings are called polysemantic. It follows that the concept of semantic structure is applicable only to polysemous words, since the semantic structure is, in fact, the structure of the LSV, and if a word has only one LSV, it cannot have the structure of the LSV.

The semantic structure of a word includes a set of lexical-semantic options, organized in a certain way and forming an ordered set, a hierarchy. There are various classifications that reflect the difference in approaches to the semantic structure of a word and the hierarchical connections of its elements.

Applying synchronic approach To study the semantic structure of a word, we can distinguish the following main types of meanings:

· main meaning of the word , which reveals the greatest paradigmatic fixation and relative independence from the context;

· private (secondary, derived) values , which, on the contrary, display the greatest syntagmatic fixation and are not determined to a noticeable extent by paradigmatic relations;

· nominative meaning , which is directly aimed at objects, phenomena, actions and qualities of reality;

· nominative-derived meaning , which is secondary to it. For example, in the word hand the meaning 'terminal part of human arm beyond the wrist' (give me your hand) is nominative, and the meanings 'a thing like a hand' (the hour hand, the minute hand), 'an employee who works with his hands' (the factory has taken on two hundred extra hands) are nominative derivatives;

· direct (eigen) value , directly related to objects and phenomena of material reality, it can be identified by becoming familiar with the realities themselves, and the latter act in this regard as an indispensable condition and objective criterion for determining the semantic scope of a word;

· figurative (metaphorical, figurative, figurative) , which is acquired by a word as a result of its conscious use in speech to designate an object that is not its usual or natural referent. Figurative meanings are formed from the direct meaning according to certain models of semantic derivation and are realized only in certain contextual conditions. They not only name an object or phenomenon, but also characterize it based on its similarity with some other object or phenomenon. Semantic structure of the verb to die includes the following LSV: 1. cease to live, expire (direct meaning); 2. to lose vital force, become weak, faint (Hope/interest dies; the noise/the conversation died); 3. to be forgotten, lost (His fame will never die); 4. decay (flowers/plants die). The values 2, 3, 4 are portable.

Meanings are portable 'time' words 'sand': The sands are running out; meaning 'win' in a word 'land': She landed a rich husband; He landed the first prize.

· According to objects of naming and social purpose, meanings are divided into conceptual and stylistic. Conceptual these lexical meanings are called , in which the subject-conceptual orientation is leading and determining; stylistic (cultural-historical) are those meanings in which the function of naming and designating objects and concepts is combined with the function of characterizing the words themselves.

· Among the conceptual lexical meanings there are abstract meanings , for example, witness – 1. evidence, testimony; And specific , for example, witness – 2. a person who has first-hand knowledge of an event and is ready to describe it; 3. a person who gives evidence under oath in a law court; 4. a person who puts his signature to a document; common nouns And own nominatives And pronominative (pronominal meanings). Particularly highlighted special meanings inherent to terms and professionalisms.

· Stylistic meanings the meanings of words belonging to different stylistic layers of the vocabulary of the language and areas of use are recognized. Archaisms and neologisms, dialectisms and exoticisms also have stylistic significance, and not only words, but also individual LSVs can be archaic, neological, dialectal and exotic.

· When analyzing the relationship of words in language and speech, the concepts are used intensional meaning (meanings of a word as a unit of language) and extensional meaning (acquired by a word in a given context of its speech use). To denote the meaning of the word “as such”, in abstraction from the whole variety of conceivable speech situations of its use, the term is also often used dictionary meaning.

On the other hand, “speech” meanings are divided into usual (established meanings accepted in the language, in which the word is usually and naturally used, i.e. reflecting syntagmatic connections characterizing the word’s own semantics) and occasional meanings (attached to a given word in a given context of speech use and representing some departure from the usual and generally accepted, i.e. meanings that, not being the result of a regular combination of words, are exclusively contextual). For example, the meaning of the verb to seat in the sentence 'Where shall I seat all these people?' is usual, in the sentence 'She went into the living-room and sat on the edge of a chair so as not to seat her good grosgrain suit' ( J. and E. Bonett) is occasional.

Usage diachronic approach means the classification of meanings according to their genetic characteristics and in accordance with their increasing or decreasing role in the language and allows the identification of the following types of meanings:

· original (original) values and derivatives , derived from them. For example, in the semantics of the word pipe the original meaning is ‘musical wind-instrument consisting of a single tube’, and the derivatives are ‘tube of wood, metal, etc., especially for conveying water, gas, etc.’; ‘narrow tube of clay, wood, etc. with bowl at one end for drawing in smoke of tobacco’, etc. Moreover, with such a classification, there is often a need to isolate an intermediate meaning, which, diachronically, is one of the links in the semantic development of a word between the original and already established derivative meanings. For example, in the semantic structure of a noun board the meaning 'table', being a metonymic transfer, acts as an intermediate link between the meaning 'an extended surface of wood' (which in turn is intermediate between 'table' and the original meaning - 'long thin usually narrow piece of sawn timber') and the meaning 'committee', also associated with metonymic transfer. Thus, with a diachronic approach, the meaning of the word board can be represented in the following form:

long thin usually narrow piece of sawn timber

an extended surface of wood

(metonymic transfer)

· etymological meaning – the meaning that is historically the earliest;

· archaic meaning – a meaning displaced from use by a newer word, but preserved in a number of stable combinations, for example: meaning "view" at the word blush: at the first blush “at first glance”; meaning of the word "spirit" ghost: to give up the ghost; meaning "particle" at the word parcel: part and parcel “integral part”; at the same time, the word exists with a different meaning (meanings) as an active element of modern vocabulary.

· obsolete meaning – a meaning that has fallen out of use;

· modern meaning – meaning, which is the most frequent in modern language.

Polysemy

Polysemy, or polysemy, is characteristic of most words in many languages. However, in the English language it is much more widespread than, for example, in the Russian language, which is partly explained by the analytical nature of the English language and the presence in it of a large number of monosyllabic words related to the most common vocabulary.

As already noted, the totality and hierarchy of all lexical-semantic variants of a polysemantic word represents its semantic structure , or paradigm . For example, the word coat Four main meanings can be distinguished: 1) long outer garment with sleeves buttoned in the front; 2) jacket; 3) any covering that can be compared to a garment (e.g. an animal’s hair or wool); 4) layer of paint or other substance put on a surface at one time (coat of paint).

LSV refers to such variants of a word, the differences between which are not reflected in their sound shell, but in a very large number of cases are expressed either in differences in syntactic structure, or in different compatibility with other words - in phraseological features, or both together . LSV is equated to a separate meaning of a polysemantic word.

The differentiation of individual meanings (LSV) of a word, however, is a rather complex problem due to the diffuseness, uncertainty and fragility of the boundaries between them. The most objective way to determine them is to study typical means and conditions for the realization of a particular meaning, called a potential typical context. As long as the semantic variants are delimited and do not merge with each other, the differences between them should be revealed when they are implemented in speech in the form of peculiar pointers, which are “deposited” in the language as a potential typical context.

The following types of typical contexts are distinguished:

· thematic, or semantic;

· constructive, or grammatical;

· phrasal.

Semantic context is specified by thematic classes of words, reflecting the relationships and connections of objects of reality. For example, verb break in combination with a specific subject countable noun has the meaning “to break” (to break a cup, a plate, a window), in combination with an abstract noun denoting rules, instructions, etc., realizes the meaning “to break the law”, in combination with the name of the animal - meaning “to tame, train”, “to go around” (to break the horse), in combination with a person's name - meaning “to teach discipline” (to break a child) etc.

Sometimes, to identify a separate LSV of a polysemantic word, it is not necessary to indicate the semantic class of words or list the lexical units that form its immediate environment. It is enough to indicate their general categorical characteristics, their belonging to one or another part of speech, in order to determine in which meaning a given word is used. For example, verb look in combination with a subsequent adjective realizes the meaning “look” (to look pale, to look young, etc.) Different LSVs are transitive and intransitive verbs like to burn smth – “burn”, to burn – “burn”, to move smth – “move”, to move – “move”, to turn smth – “turn”, to turn – “turn”. This type of context is called constructive (grammatical). In English, the constructive context is typical for LSV verbs, is much less common in adjective variants and practically does not occur in other parts of speech.

Phrase context a context that is specified by an enumeration, a list of specific lexemes, is called. The phrasal context, like the constructive one, is intralingual, since the limitation of the list of lexemes and the impossibility of extracting common features from it are due to purely linguistic reasons, the peculiarities of the system of a given language, in other words, linguistic usage. For example: stocking ladder- “a dropped loop (on a stocking)”, flowers of speech- “beautiful figures of speech.”

Thus, the conditions for the implementation of a LSV word in speech are its syntagmatic characteristics . However, it should be noted that words also play an important role in distinguishing LSV words. paradigmatic connections of words, their systemic opposition. Thus, all LSVs of one word are correlated in the language system with different synonyms and antonyms (if any). For example, LSV "to break", "to break" verb break correlates with synonyms crack, smash, demolish, fracture, shatter; LSV "violate" with synonyms violate, infringe; LSV "tame"- with synonym tame etc.

Recognition of the polysemy of a word leads to the question of the relationship between lexical-semantic variants, the classification (ordering) of the types of such variants, i.e. to the question of the typology of different sets of elements of the semantic structure of a word.

Semantic structure of a word is defined as a hierarchical system, a historically established unity of lexical-semantic options with the main direct nominative meaning at its center.

Since lexical-semantic variants in the structure of a polysemantic word are hierarchically organized on the basis of direct nominative meaning and are interconnected by the relation of semantic derivatives, intra-word connections of the meanings of a polysemantic word can be described in terms of the direction, pattern and ordered sequence of connections and their meaningful characteristics.

The following types of organization of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word are distinguished: radial and chain.

At radial connection all derived meanings are directly related to the direct nominative meaning and are motivated by it; this type is much more widespread. For example, the word field The following LSVs are distinguished: 1) field, meadow (field of rye); 2) large space (field of ice); 3) site, area (for any purpose) (flying field); 4) geol. gold field; 5) battlefield, battle (to hold the field); 6) region, field of activity (he"s the best man in his field); 7) specialist. field, region (magnetic field). Here the direct nominative meaning “field, meadow” is directly related to all subsequent meanings, which can be graphically represented as follows:

Chain polysemy in its pure form, when values are sequentially connected with each other and form a single chain, is extremely rare. This occurs, for example, in the semantic structure of such polysemantic words as bleak And suggest; bleak- 1) not protected from the wind, open (bleak hillside); 2) cold, harsh (bleak wind); 3) dull, sad, gloomy (bleak prospects); suggest- 1) suggest, advise (what do you suggest?); 2) inspire, evoke, suggest (thought) (his tone suggested unfriendliness); 3) come to mind, come to mind (an idea suggested itself to me). Graphically this relationship can be depicted as follows:

The most common type of arrangement of connections in the structure of a polysemantic word is radial chain polysemy , taking on a variety of configurations depending on which values are in direct connection with each other. For example, for a noun glass, in which dictionaries distinguish such meanings as 1) glass; 2) glassware; 3) glass, glass, goblet; 4) glass, glass, goblet (measure of capacity); 5) greenhouse frame; 6) greenhouse; 7) mirror; 8) lens; 9) microscope and some others, this configuration looks like this:

The tables above clearly demonstrate that the relationships between individual LSVs in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word can be direct or indirect. Direct connections are established between the producing meaning and the meaning derived from it, and indirect connections are established between the derived meanings. As a result of the indirectness of connections, some meanings in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word are quite far from each other.

In the process of functioning and development of a language, the indicated relations of various LSVs of a polysemantic word, established and considered from the point of view of a historical perspective, do not remain unchanged: new meanings appear, some meanings disappear over time, the direction of derivativeness changes.

Homonymy

Homonymy- this is a sound coincidence of different linguistic units, the meanings of which are not related to each other.

Homonyms words that sound the same are called words that do not have common elements of meaning (sem) and are not associated associatively. These are, for example, nouns: bank 1 – “bank” and bank 2 – “shore (river, lake)”; Verbs boast 1 – “boast” and boast 2 – “cut the stone rough”; adjectives close 1 – “closed” and close 2 – “close” etc.

Highly developed homonymy is a characteristic feature of the English language, which is due, firstly, to the presence in the English language of a large number of monosyllabic words that belong to the most common vocabulary, and, secondly, to the analytical nature of the language. The frequency of words is inversely related to their length (the number of syllables in them), so monosyllabic words are the most frequent. In turn, the most frequent words are characterized by highly developed polysemy. And it is quite natural that in the process of development such words can acquire meanings that deviate very far from the main (central, direct nominative) meaning, which is known in linguistics under the name of semantic differentiation, or divergence.

Classification of homonyms

An important place in the linguistic description of homonyms is occupied by the problem of their classification.

By degree of identity There are three types of coincidences of the sound and letter forms of different words - complete homonyms and incomplete homonyms (homophones and homographs).

Full homonyms are words that are the same in both their sound and written forms, but differ in meaning. These are, for example, the words back, n "part of the body" :: back, adv "away from the front" :: back, v "go back"; ball, n "a round object used in games" :: ball, n "a gathering of people for dancing"; bark, n "the noise made by a dog" :: bark, v "to utter sharp explosive cries" :: bark, n "the skin of a tree":: bark, n "a sailing ship"; base, n "bottom" :: base, v "build a place upon" :: base, a "mean"; bay, n "part of the sea or lake filling wide-mouth opening of land" :: bay, n "recess in a house or a room" :: bay, v "bark" :: bay, n "the European laurel" .

Homophones units are called that are similar in their sound, but differ in their spelling and meaning, for example: air::heir; buy::by; him::hymn; knight::night; not::knot; or::oar; peace::piece; rain::reign; steel::steal; storey::story; write::right.

Homographs name words that are identical in spelling, but different in meaning and pronunciation (both in terms of sound composition and place of stress in the word), for example: bow::bow; lead :: lead ; row::row; sewer :: sewer; wind::wind.

Along with the sound coincidence of words, there may be a coincidence of individual forms of different words. In these cases, we are no longer talking about lexical homonyms, but about morphological ones. Different forms of words that match in sound appearance are called homoforms (saw"saw" and saw form of the verb to see "to see").

By type of distinguishing value(i.e., according to the semantic differences observed between words of identical form), all homonyms are divided into the following groups:

lexical homonyms , belonging to one part of speech and characterized by one lexico-grammatical meaning and different lexical meanings (for example: night “night” – knight “knight”; ball 1 “ball” – ball 2 “ball”; seal "seal" - seal "seal");
lexico-grammatical homonyms , differing both in their lexical and grammatical meanings, and, accordingly, in the paradigm of inflection (for example: rose “rose” – rose “rose”; sea “sea” – see “to see”);
grammatical homonyms – homonymous forms in the paradigm of the same word, differing in their grammatical meanings (for example: boys “boys” – boy’s “boy” – boys’ “boys”; in the verb paradigm, the past tense and participle II forms are homonymous (asked - asked)).

Of particular note are the lexico-grammatical homonyms formed in English according to the productive conversion model ( patterned homonymy ). Words formed by conversion always have a common semantic part with the generating base, but belong to a different part of speech.

Professor A.I. Smirnitsky divides homonyms into two large classes: complete homonyms and incomplete homonyms.

Full lexical homonyms are words that belong to the same part of speech and have the same paradigm. For example: match "match":: match "match".

Incomplete homonyms are divided into three subclasses:

1) Simple lexical and grammatical incomplete homonyms– words belonging to one part of speech, the paradigms of which have the same form. For example: (to) found, v:: found, v(Past Indef., Past Part, of ‘to find’); to lay, v:: lay, v (Past Indef. of ‘to lie’); to bound, v:: bound, v(Past Indef, Past Part, of ‘to bind’).

2) Complex lexical and grammatical incomplete homonyms– words belonging to different parts of speech that have the same form in their paradigms. For example: maid, n:: made, v (Past Indef., Past Part, of ‘to make’); bean, n:: been, v (Past Part, of ‘to be’); one, pit:: won, v(Past Indef., Past Part, of ‘to win’).

3) Incomplete lexical homonyms- words that belong to the same part of speech and are the same only in the initial form. For example: to lie (lay, lain), v:: to lie (lied, lied), v; to hang (hung, hung), v:: to hang (hanged, hung), v; to can (canned, canned), v:: can (could), v.

Sources of homonymy

The emergence of homonyms in the language is caused by various reasons. I.V. Arnold identifies two reasons for the emergence of homonyms in English:

1) as a result of a random coincidence of the sound and/or graphic form of completely different words (for example: case 1 in meaning "case, circumstance, situation" And case 2 in meaning "box, casket, box", flaw "crack" And flaw "gust of wind", having different sources of origin, but accidentally matching in form). This phenomenon is called sonic convergence ;

2) in the event that some intermediate links (meanings) fall out of the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, new meanings may lose connection with the rest of the semantic structure of the word and turn into an independent unit. This phenomenon is defined as split of polysemy . For example, in modern English board 1– a long and thin piece of timber, board 2– daily meals, esp. as provided for pay (e.g. room and board), board 3– an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity (e.g. a board of directors) are considered as three homonyms, because There is no semantic connection between the meanings of these three words. However, in large dictionaries you can sometimes find an already outdated and obsolete meaning of the word board – “a table”, which once connected all the above meanings with each other, and they all together made up the semantic structure of the polysemantic word board, in which the second meaning came from the first as a result of metonymic transfer (material - a product made from it), and the third and fourth meanings came from the second also as a result of metonymic transfer (contiguity in space: food is usually laid on the table, and people discuss some official business, as a rule, also at the table). After a loanword appeared in English table in meaning "a piece of furniture", it displaced the corresponding meaning of the word board from use, as a result of which the semantic connection between its remaining meanings was lost, which began to be perceived as different lexical units having the same form, i.e. homonyms.

G.B. Antrushina identifies the following sources of homonymy:

· phonetic changes , as a result of which two or more words that previously had different pronunciations can acquire the same sound, thus forming homonyms, for example: night::knight, write::right;

· borrowing from other languages, since a borrowed word may, at the last stage of phonetic adaptation, coincide in form with a word of a given language or with another borrowed word. So, in the group of homonyms rite, n:: to write, v. :: right, adj the second and third words of English origin, and the word rite was borrowed from Latin (Lat. ritus);

· word formation. The most productive way in this regard is conversion: comb, n:: to comb, v; to make, v:: make, n; reduction, For example, fan, n in meaning "an enthusiastic admirer of some kind of sport or of an actor, singer, etc." is a shortened form fanatic. Its homonym is a borrowed word from Latin fan, n "an implement for waving lightly to produce a cool current air". Noun rep, n, denoting the type of material, has 3 homonyms formed by abbreviation: rep,n(repertory), rep,n(representative), rep,n(reputation).

The source of homonymy can be the imitative origin of one of the homonyms, cf.: bang, n ("a loud, sudden, explosive noise") :: bang, n ("a fringe of hair combed over the forehead"); mew, n (the sound a cat makes) :: mew, n ("a sea gull") :: mew, n("a pen in which poultry is fattened") :: mews("small terraced houses in Central London").

All of the above sources of homonymy have a common characteristic feature. In all cases, homonyms are derived from one or more different words and their similarity is completely accidental, with the exception of homonyms formed by conversion;

II. Consolidation of basic knowledge. 1. In a game form, an exercise is carried out to transform the word shelf - file - stick.

II. Consolidation of basic knowledge. We need to find antonyms for the words

II. Consolidation of basic knowledge. · A game. “Write the words in the boxes” (chinword).

II. Working with words denoting objects and actions.

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.

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: 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 ring); 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.

The structural-semantic direction in our time is represented by several varieties: in some cases more attention is paid to structure, in others - to semantics. There is also no doubt that science strives for the harmony of these principles.
The structural-semantic direction is the next stage in the evolution of traditional linguistics, which has not stopped in its development, but has become the fundamental basis for synthesizing the achievements of various aspects in the study and description of language and speech. That is why all existing directions “grew” and “grow” on the fertile soil of traditions, “split off” from the main trunk - the main direction of development of Russian linguistics, which are the syntactic concepts of M. V. Lomonosov, F. I. Buslaev, A. A. Potebnya, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Shakhmatov, V.V. Vinogradov and others, who considered syntactic phenomena in the unity of form and content.
In traditional syntax, aspects of the study of syntactic units were not clearly differentiated, but were somehow taken into account when describing syntactic units and their classification.
In the works of representatives of the structural-semantic direction, the best traditions of Russian syntactic theory are carefully preserved and developed, enriched with new fruitful ideas developed during the single-aspect study of syntactic units.
The development of the structural-semantic direction is stimulated by the needs of teaching the Russian language, where a multidimensional, comprehensive consideration of linguistic and speech means is necessary.
Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language: Word order and actual division of sentences. - M., 1976. - P. 7
Supporters of the structural-semantic direction rely on the following theoretical principles when studying and classifying (describing) syntactic units:

Language, thinking and being (objective reality) are interconnected and interdependent.
Language is a historical phenomenon, constantly developing and improving.
Language and speech are interconnected and interdependent, therefore a functional approach to the study of syntactic units - an analysis of their functioning in speech - is fundamentally important.
The categories of language form a dialectical unity of form and content (structure and semantics, structures and meaning)
The linguistic system is a system of systems (subsystems, levels). Syntax is one of the levels of the general language system.

Syntactic units form a level subsystem.

Syntactic units are multidimensional.

7 The properties of syntactic units are manifested in syntactic connections and relationships.
8. Many linguistic and speech syntactic phenomena are syncretic.
Many of these provisions are fundamental for all levels of the language system, therefore they are discussed in the courses “Introduction to Linguistics”, “General Linguistics”, “Historical Grammar of the Russian Language”, etc. However, they cannot be ignored when analyzing and describing the syntactic system.
Let us explain those provisions that are especially important for describing units of syntax.
One of them is the principle of systematic linguistic structure. All modern linguistics is permeated with the idea of systematic linguistic and speech facts. It follows from this: a) language as a system is a whole consisting of interconnected and interacting elements; b) there are not and cannot be phenomena that fall outside the system of language, phenomena outside the system.
The classics of Russian linguistics studied language as a multi-level system, noted inter-level connections and interactions. In modern linguistics, much attention is paid to the delineation of levels and their differentiation.
In the structural-semantic direction, after realizing the differentiation of levels, trends are emerging: a) to explore and describe the complex interaction of levels, their interweaving. In syntactic works, this is manifested in identifying connections between vocabulary and syntax, morphology and syntax (see the corresponding sections); b)" in syntactic works, establish a hierarchy of syntactic units: phrase, simple sentence, complex sentence, complex syntactic whole. Two approaches to the description of syntactic units are outlined: from lower to higher (the “bottom” approach), from higher to lower (the “top” approach "), Depending on the approach, different aspects of syntactic units and their different properties are revealed to the researcher.
A specific feature of the structural-semantic direction is the multidimensional study and description of language, and in particular syntactic units.1
If in traditional linguistics the extensive study of syntactic units relied heavily on the intuition of researchers, then in the structural-semantic direction the most essential features of phenomena noted within the framework of any one-aspect direction are deliberately combined.
However, it is obvious that it is difficult to take into account all single-aspect characteristics (there are too many of them!), and in many cases it is not necessary if a small number of characteristics is sufficient to determine the place of a syntactic fact in the system of others (for classification and qualification).
For linguistic and methodological purposes, the main features of syntactic units are structural and semantic.
The main criterion for the classification of syntactic units at the present stage of development of syntactic theory is recognized as structural.
Based on the dialectical unity of form and content, in which the determining factor is the content, semantics is more important, because there is not and cannot be a meaningless, “empty” form. However, only those “meanings” that are expressed (formulated) by grammatical or lexicogrammatical means are accessible to observations, generalizations, etc. Therefore, not only in structuralist directions, but also in the structural-semantic analysis of the phenomena of language and speech, the primary is the structural approach, attention to the structure, to the form of syntactic phenomena. Let us explain this with the following examples.
The distinction between two-part and one-part sentences in many cases is based only on a structural criterion (the number of main members and their morphological properties - the method of expression) is taken into account. Wed: I love music. - I love music; Someone is knocking on the window. - There is a knock on the window; Everything is quiet around. - Quiet around, etc. The semantic differences between two-part and one-part sentences are insignificant.
The selection of incomplete sentences like Father - to the window is also based on a structural criterion, since in semantic terms this sentence is complete.
The preference for a structural criterion over a semantic one when determining the volume of sentence members was shown on p. 18.
In some cases, participial and adjectival phrases and even subordinate clauses can act as semantic concretizers. For example: A life lived without serving the broad interests and objectives of society has no justification (Leskov).
And if we consistently carry out the semantic criterion for the classification of syntactic units, if we take the requirement of semantic completeness to the extreme, then the division of sentences in such cases can be presented in the form of two components, that is, the mechanism for constructing such sentences will practically not be clarified.
However, in the structural-semantic direction, the structural criterion of classification is not always consistently observed. If the structural indicators are not clear, semantics plays a decisive role. Such cases have already been considered when clarifying the connections between vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Semantics can be decisive in distinguishing the direct object and the subject (Cedar broke the hurricane), in determining the syntactic function of the infinitive (cf.: I want to write a review. - I ask you to write a review), etc. A more strict, accurate and complete definition of character syntactic phenomenon is possible only taking into account structural and semantic differences.
Methodological note. In the theoretical and practical parts of the school textbook, either structure or semantics comes to the fore. Thus, when distinguishing between two-part and one-part sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when distinguishing between varieties of one-part verbal sentences, the main criterion is semantic; when distinguishing between varieties of conjunctive complex sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when classifying non-conjunctive sentences, it is semantic. In general, the textbook is characterized by flexibility in the relationship between structural and semantic indicators in the qualification and classification of linguistic material, justified by the language and speech material.
The next feature of the structural-semantic direction is taking into account the meanings of the elements (components) of syntactic units and the relationships between them when qualifying syntactic phenomena. In traditional linguistics, the focus is on the essence of the syntactic unit itself, its properties; in structural directions the focus is on the relationships between syntactic units.
In the structural-semantic direction, both the meaning of elements and the meaning of relationships are taken into account. In the most general form, they can be defined as follows: the meaning of elements is their lexico-grammatical semantics, the meaning of relations is the meaning that is found in one element of the system in relation to another.
The elements (components) of phrases are the main and dependent words, of simple sentences - members of the sentence (word forms), of complex sentences - their parts (simple sentences), of a complex syntactic whole - simple and complex sentences.
Let us show the difference between the meaning of relations and the meaning of elements by comparing the semantics of the following phrases: sawing wood and sawing wood. In the structural approach, the meaning of these phrases is considered to be object relations. With a structural-semantic approach, the meanings of these phrases differ: sawing wood - “the action and the object to which the action is transferred”; sawing wood is “a objectified action and an object to which the action passes.”
Synthesis of the meaning of elements and the meaning of relationships makes it possible to more accurately determine the semantics of the phrase as a whole than with a structural characteristic, when only the meaning of the second element is noted, which is interpreted as the meaning of the phrase.
The distinction between the meanings of relations and the meanings of elements explains the reasons for the dual qualification of the semantics of phrases, which is observed in modern works on syntax: cloudy day - attributive relations and “an object and its attribute”; to chop with an ax - object relations and “action and instrument of action,” etc. The first definitions of meaning are more typical for modern syntactic theories of the structural direction, the second - for the structural-semantic direction.
The meaning of relationships can correspond to the meaning of elements (golden autumn, snowy winter, etc.), and can introduce additional “meanings” into the semantics of elements: the meaning of an object,
places, etc. (rain and snow, road in the forest, etc.), can change the meaning of elements (seashore, birch leaves, etc.).
The semantic relationships between sentences in a complex sentence are determined not only by the grammatical, but also by the lexical semantics of the combined sentences. So, in the sentences I am sad: there is no friend with me (Pushkin) and I am cheerful: my friend is with me, the very possibility of temporary and cause-and-effect relationships is determined by both lexical and grammatical semantics. Here, for example, goal values are impossible, since the typical meaning of the first sentence (state) does not allow combination with a sentence having a goal value.
Between the sentences I love tea and It will rain soon, semantic connections cannot be established due to the incompatibility of the lexical semantics of these sentences.
It is obvious that the grammatical semantics of complex sentences is not necessary in itself, but as the background that allows sentences to be “collised” in such a way as to complicate their lexical semantics with additional meanings and to reveal their content reserves. For example: Teacher, raise a student so that he has someone to learn from later (Vinokurov). The semantics of this complex sentence as a whole is not a simple sum of the “meanings” of individual sentences. The message of the first part becomes deeper and more acute when it is supplemented with an indication of the purpose, revealed by a subordinate clause. The informative content of this complex sentence undoubtedly includes the lexical and grammatical meanings of the elements (main and subordinate clauses) and the meaning of the relationships between them. Analysis of the semantics of phrases and complex sentences, taking into account the meanings of elements and relationships, shows that the specificity of the elements of syntactic units is most fully and accurately revealed in the connections and relationships between them.
The next feature of the structural-semantic direction, organically connected with the first two, is attention to the phenomena of transition (syncretism), which are found at all levels of language and speech, when studying language in any aspect.
Syntactic units have a complex of differential features, among which the main ones are structural and semantic. For convenience of description, syntactic units are systematized (classified), and types, subtypes, varieties, groups, etc. of syntactic phenomena are identified, which in turn have a set of differential features.
The orderliness of classifications is disrupted by syntactic phenomena that combine the properties of different classes in the synchronous system of language. They qualify as transitional (syncretistic). Interacting syntactic phenomena can be represented in the form of intersecting, partially overlapping circles, each of which has its own center (core) and periphery (see the diagram below).
The center (core) includes syntactic phenomena typical for a particular classification rubric, which have a maximum concentration of differential features and a complete set of them. On the periphery there are syntactic phenomena that lack or are not clearly expressed any differential features characteristic of the center. The shaded segment is the area of intermediate formations, which are characterized by a balance of combined differential features.
The different relationships between the properties of compared syntactic phenomena can be shown using a transitivity scale, placing it in intersecting circles.

The end points of the scale A and B indicate comparable syntactic units and their varieties, between which in the synchronous system of language, especially speech, there is an infinite number of transitional (syncretic) links that “flow” into one another. For ease of presentation, we reduce the number of transition links to three, highlighting them as key points and milestones.
Ab, AB, aB are transitional connecting stages, or links, reflecting the interaction between correlative syntactic phenomena. Transitional links include facts of language and speech that synthesize differential features A and B.
Syncretic phenomena are heterogeneous in the proportion of combining properties: in some cases there are more characteristics of type A, in others properties of type B predominate, in others there is an approximate balance of combining properties (AB). Therefore, syncretic phenomena are divided into two groups: peripheral (Ab and aB) and intermediate (AB). The boundary between typical syntactic phenomena passes in the AB zone. The transitivity scale allows you to clearly show fluctuations in the proportion of combined differential characteristics.
The presence of a transition zone between typical units (A and B) connects the units of syntax, and especially their varieties, into a system and makes the boundaries between them fuzzy and unclear. L. V. Shcherba wrote: ... we must remember that only extreme cases are clear
teas Intermediate ones in the original source itself - in the minds of the speakers - turn out to be hesitant and indefinite. However, this is something unclear and wavering and should most of all attract the attention of linguists."
A complete understanding of the system of syntactic structure of the Russian language cannot be given by studying only typical cases characterized by a “bundle” of differential features. It is necessary to study the interaction and mutual influence of syntactic units, taking into account transitional (syncretic) links that reflect in the synchronous system of a language the richness of its capabilities and the dynamics of its development. To ignore syncretic phenomena means to reduce and impoverish the object of study. Without taking into account syncretic formations, a deep and comprehensive classification of syntax units is impossible. Transitions (overflows) without sharp dividing lines are observed between all units of syntax and their varieties.
Transitional phenomena not only take place in one system (subsystem, etc.) of a language, but also connect its different levels, reflecting the interaction between them. As a result, even with level differentiation, syncretic facts (intermediate and peripheral) are discovered, which are interpreted as interlevel.
Thus, both levels and aspects are interpenetrable.
Among the many factors that determine the phenomena of transitivity, we note three: 1) the combination of features characterizing various syntactic units due to their level nature; 2) the combination of features characterizing syntactic phenomena due to their multifaceted nature; 3) combination of features due to the overlap (synthesis) of element values and relationship values. We illustrate the points made.
We illustrate the synthesis of differential properties of basic syntactic units belonging to different levels of the syntactic subsystem with the following examples, among which Ab, AB and aB are the zone of transitional cases between a complex sentence and a simple, complicated introductory word:
A - Everyone knows that he is a young man.
Ab - It is known that he is a young man.
AB - It is known: he is a young man.
a B - It is known that he is a young man.
B - He is known to be a young man.
We will show the discrepancy between the semantic and formal structure as a consequence of the multidimensional nature of syntactic units using the following example: I love a thunderstorm in early May... (Tyutchev). Some scientists consider such proposals as one-part definitely-personal, while others consider them two-part with incomplete implementation of the structural scheme. The dual qualification of such proposals is due to the multi-aspect approach to their analysis. If we take semantic properties alone as the basis for the classification (there is an agent - a logical subject and an action - a predicate), then this sentence must be qualified as two-part; if we take into account only the structural properties, then this proposal must be qualified as one-component; If both are taken into account, then such a proposal should be interpreted as transitional (intermediate) between two-part and one-part ones. On the transitivity scale, such a sentence falls into the shaded segment.
We will show the synthesis of differential features due to the superposition of element values and relationship values using the following example: The path in the forests is kilometers of silence and calm (Paustovsky). In the phrase path in the forests, the lexical and grammatical meaning of the place of the word form in the forests is complicated by the meaning of the definition (cf. forest path).
From all that has been said, the conclusion follows: it is necessary to distinguish between typical syntactic units and their varieties, which have a full set of differential features, and transitional (syncretic) phenomena with a combination of features. Both for syntactic research and for teaching practice, it is extremely important not to strive to “squeeze” syncretic phenomena into the Procrustean bed of typical cases, but to allow variations in their qualification and classification, and to note combining properties. This will allow us to overcome dogmatism in teaching practice, and in theoretical research it will lead to a freer, more flexible and deeper interpretation of syntactic phenomena.
Methodological note. In school syntax, the possibility of asking several questions to the same member of a sentence is noted (see note on pp. 64, 72, etc.). Attention to ambiguous members of a sentence not only expands the range of students’ knowledge, but also contributes to the development of their linguistic sense, cognitive activity, thinking and speech. However, at school, polysemous members of a sentence should not be the focus of study, although the teacher should know about their existence so as not to demand an unambiguous answer where a double interpretation is possible.

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.