>>Russian language 5th grade >>Russian language: Thematic groups of words

THEMATIC WORD GROUPS

Theory A

If the lexical meanings of words have something in common, they have something in common, such words form THEMATIC GROUPS (in Ukrainian: thematic groups of words): flowers - daisies, violets, lilies of the valley, lilac. All these words have one common concept - flower. But at the same time, each of the flowers has its own distinctive characteristics.

Practice A

1. Instead of gaps, insert the words that make sense. Name this thematic group of words.

What people don’t collect*! Rare books are collected... . Ancient and modern coins are collected..., postage stamps and other signs of postage are of interest..., ... collect postcards, and... - all kinds of badges.

*Collect- collect a collection. A collection is a systematic collection of some objects.

Theory B

A thematic group of words with a narrow, specific concept is united by a word with a broad, generic concept. For example, words chamomile, violet, lily of the valley, lilac united by the word “flowers”.

Practice B

2. Find the names of the genus and species in the indicated words.

Linden, maple, tree, willow, spruce.

3. Find the extra word.

Hobbies - drawing, collecting, friendship, traveling.

4. Read the text. Write out from it a word denoting a broad generic concept and an expression denoting a narrow specific concept.

Lisa is a fifth grader. She lives in Kyiv. Like all kids, he studies at school, loves to run and play. But she has a hobby to which the girl devotes all her free time. Together with her brother, third-grader Anton, she enjoys painting Easter eggs. As a child, he and his grandmother always painted eggs for Easter. Then Lisa realized that painting Easter eggs is a whole science.

N.F. Baladina, K.V. Degtyareva, S.A. Lebedenko. Russian language 5th grade

Submitted by readers from Internet sites

Electronic publications for free, outline plans for the Russian language grade 5, textbooks and books in all subjects, development of Russian language lessons, homework, Russian language tests answers

Lesson content lesson notes and supporting frame lesson presentation acceleration methods and interactive technologies closed exercises (for teacher use only) assessment Practice tasks and exercises, self-test, workshops, laboratories, cases level of difficulty of tasks: normal, high, olympiad homework Illustrations illustrations: video clips, audio, photographs, graphs, tables, comics, multimedia abstracts, tips for the curious, cheat sheets, humor, parables, jokes, sayings, crosswords, quotes Add-ons external independent testing (ETT) textbooks basic and additional thematic holidays, slogans articles national features dictionary of terms other Only for teachers

Back in the last century, Russian semasiologist M.M. Pokrovsky (1868-1942) drew attention to the fact that “words and their meanings do not live a life separate from each other,” but are united in our soul, regardless of our consciousness, into various groups. The basis for combining words into lexical-semantic groups are verbal associations that reflect the connections of objects in the surrounding world. Unlike polysemy, which is characterized by a semantic connection within the meanings of one word, these associations arise on the basis of semantic connections between different words, as a result of comparison, identification and differentiation of their meanings. There are three main types of semantic connections between words - the absence of common elements of meaning, proximity of meanings, opposition of meanings. MM. Pokrovsky pointed out that in the lexical system of a language there are various groups or “fields of words.” Some of them are intralingual associations, others are extralinguistic associations. These ideas by M.M. Pokrovsky were developed in modern linguistics when developing the issue of semantic organization of the vocabulary of a language, in particular, in the theory of semantic fields, lexical-semantic and thematic groups. A lexical-semantic group is a set of words belonging to the same part of speech, united by intralingual connections based on interdependent and interconnected elements of meaning. A thematic group is a set of words united on the basis of the extra-linguistic commonality of the objects or concepts they denote. The basis for identifying a thematic group is a collection of objects or phenomena of the external world, united according to a certain characteristic and expressed in different words. A semantic field is a set of linguistic units united by a common meaning and representing the subject, conceptual or functional similarity of the designated phenomena. Words included in the semantic field are characterized by the presence of a common semantic feature, on the basis of which this field is formed.

Object work is the lexical system of the language.

Subject works are lexical-semantic groups of words.

Target course research is that lexical-semantic groups of words are identified in the names of service points in the city of Tolyatti. To achieve the goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

· consider the lexical-semantic system of the Russian language;

· analyze the names of bars, cafes, clubs and restaurants;

· select groups of names of points serving the city of Tolyatti.

The purpose and objectives determine the structure of this course work. The course work consists of an introduction, two chapters, conclusions for each chapter, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix.

This work used the works of the following authors: Vendina T.I., Girutskaya A.A., Rosenthal D.E., Golub I.B., Telenkova M.A., Maslov Yu.S., Mechkovskaya N.B.

Chapter 1. Lexico-semantic system of the Russian language

1.1 General characteristics of the lexical-semantic system of the Russian language

Words within the lexical system of a language do not exist in isolation, but in close connection with each other, forming systems built on various bases: semantic-grammatical (parts of speech), word-formation (word-formation nests), semantic (synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, semantic fields , lexical-semantic groups, etc.).

A system (in the philosophical and linguistic sense) is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity. (4, p.146) The integrity of the system is achieved by the internal coherence of linguistic elements of different levels, their dependence on their place and function in the language.

Language, having a communicative and cognitive function, serves as a means of expressing knowledge verified by the socio-historical practice of people. The significant vocabulary of any language contains a whole world of lexical meanings, since the word is the simplest symbolic means of naming a fragment of reality (object, property, action, state, etc.). At the same time, “words and their meanings do not live a life separate from each other, but are united in our soul, regardless of our consciousness, into various groups, and the basis for grouping is similarity or direct opposition in basic meaning,” wrote the famous Russian semasiologist M.M. . Pokrovsky, one of the first to realize the systematic nature of vocabulary. (6, p.82)

In modern linguistics, the view of vocabulary as a system of systems has been firmly established. It found its expression in the recognition of the fact of the existence in the language of various groups of words, contrasted in meaning, form, degree of similarity of forms and meanings, in the nature of the relationships that develop between words forming one group or another, etc. However, the systematic nature of vocabulary is manifested not only in the presence of certain semantic groups, semantic fields, classes or oppositions (such as native - borrowed, active - passive, neutral and stylistically marked), but also in the very nature of the use of lexical units, where certain patterns are also observed (for example , antonyms can be used often in the same contexts, the same picture is observed with synonyms, and different meanings of the same word (LSV) are used, as a rule, in divergent contexts).

Recognition of the lexical composition of a language as a system of systems is also consistent with the postulates of the general theory of systems, the main concepts of which are “integrity”, “element”, “structure”, “connections”. Language, as is known, is a long-evolving system, because As society and its culture develop and become more complex, the lexical system of the language grows, branches and differentiates; moreover, this system evolves along with the development of the grammatical and phonetic systems of the language. At the same time, as recent studies by linguists at the Institute of the Russian Language (N.Yu. Shvedova’s group) have shown, the lexical system of the language is even more stable than the grammatical one (since deep Indo-European antiquity, such words have existed in the Russian language: like mother, son, brother, sister, earth, water etc., although the grammatical structure of the language has undergone significant changes).

The systematic nature of the vocabulary greatly simplifies the search for the right words, since the speaker searches for the word he needs not in the entire vocabulary of the language, but within a small part of it - a synonymous series, a semantic field, a lexical-semantic group (LSG), to which he is guided by the situation and the logic itself thinking.

A characteristic feature of the lexical system of a language is its openness, since vocabulary is the most mobile level of language, it most reflects changes in various spheres of life (some words become obsolete and leave the language, others are born or borrowed), since the vocabulary of the modern Russian language is system, the words included in it are united by two types of relationships - syntagmatic and paradigmatic.

Syntagmatic relations (Greek syntagma “together constructed, connected”) are linear relations that arise between members of horizontal series, corresponding, according to the theory of F. de Saussure, as determined and determining. Linguistic units, following one after another, form a linguistic chain - a syntagma, within which they are in syntagmatic relationships (cf. groupings of words of the syntagmatic type part - whole, object - attribute, object and associated action, etc., relationships between which can be called relations of inherence, for example, pine - pine - pine cone; dog - shaggy - barks - bites or a child's hand, a pencil and a pen, the arm of a chair, etc.). (4, p.148)

Paradigmatic relations (Greek paradeigma “sample”) are vertical relations that arise between opposing linguistic units - members of vertical rows. Each paradigm makes it possible to identify common and differential semantic features of the linguistic units included in it. As a rule, the lexical-semantic paradigm combines words connected by relations of equivalence (cf. synonyms sad - sad), opposites (cf. antonyms day Night), juxtaposition (cf. semantic series pine - spruce - larch - cedar from words included in the group of coniferous trees or arm - hand - elbow - shoulder in the names of the hand), inclusions (cf. generic term - specific term: tree - pine). (4, p.149)

Syntagmatic relations of lexical units are based on the concept of position, and paradigmatic relations I - on the concept of opposition. (4, p.149)

Position is the position of a lexical unit in the text, in which its relationship to other units that are semantically close to it is manifested. (4, p.149) There are strong and weak positions. Strong positions are positions of distinguishing words or their lexical-semantic variants (LSV), cf. a fresh cucumber, a fresh issue of a newspaper and a fresh wind. Weak positions are positions of non-discrimination, positions of neutralization of the meanings of words or their LSV (cf. narrow fields: notebooks, hats, peasant plots).

Opposition is the opposition of a lexical unit to other lexical units that are included with it in the paradigm (the words goat, cat, dog, cow are included in the paradigm based on the common attribute “domestic animals”, but they also form an opposition, since cow refers to cattle, a goat to small animals, and a cat to the cat family). (4, p.149)

The whole variety of relations of lexical units can be reduced to four main types of oppositions and distributions:

1st type of relationship - coinciding: lexical units A and B completely coincide in use and meaning, since they are absolute synonyms [linguistics (A) - linguistics (B)]. They have an equivalent (Latin aequalis “equal”), i.e. coinciding distribution and zero opposition.

2nd type of relationship - inclusive, generic: the value of unit A includes the value of unit B [cf. linguistics (A) and science (B)], however, the meaning of unit B (science) is broader than A (linguistics), therefore the distribution of unit A is included in the distribution of unit B. This type of distribution is called inclusive, and opposition is called privative, i.e. . private, because one member of the opposition has some semantic attribute, and the other is deprived of it (cf. science is not only linguistics, but also other types of sciences), this type of opposition is often called tense.

Type 3 of relationships - partially coinciding, crossing (it is most clearly represented in antonyms): lexical units A and B only partially coincide (for example, the words brother and sister only partially coincide in the common seme “blood relatives”, in other semes they diverge, therefore these lexical units have contrasting distribution and equipollent (Latin aequipollens “having the same meaning”), i.e. equivalent opposition (distinctive features are, as it were, in balance), therefore this opposition is often called unstressed;

4th type of relationship - not coinciding either in meaning or in use, these words are external (for example, table and will), such relationships can also be observed in homonyms (key “tool for opening a lock” and key “spring” or in words with a polysemantic meaning, cf. delicate taste and a thin slice of bread), therefore these lexical units have additional (non-matching) distribution and disjunctive (Latin disjunctio “separation, division, difference”) opposition. (4, p.150)

Academician D.N. Shmelev proposed to distinguish another type of relationship between words of the lexical-semantic system of a language - epidigmatic (or formal and semantic word formation). Epidigmatic relations are relations that reveal the word-formation connections of a word, thanks to which it is able to enter into various lexical-semantic paradigms. Epidigmatic relations are most often relations of equivalence, relations of parallel derivation between derivatives of the same level (cf. teach - teacher //student //teaching //studies), or relations of inclusion, subordination, relations of sequential derivation (cf. teach -> teacher -> teaching -> teach). (4, p.150)

The existence of groups of words that are opposed to each other in terms of expression and content is evidence of systemic relationships in vocabulary. From the point of view of the plan of expression in the vocabulary, homonyms are distinguished ( onion "garden plant" and onion "weapon"), homographs ( flour - flour), homophones ( fruit - raft), homoforms ( bake- noun and bake- verb), paronyms ( pay - pay), word-forming nests ( water - water - underwater). From the point of view of the content plan, synonyms are distinguished in the vocabulary ( hurry - hurry up), antonyms ( thick - thin), synonymous rows, lexical-semantic and thematic groups, semantic fields, etc. The members of these associations are connected by a common relationship either to the subject area (the so-called subject or denotative fields, for example, names of plants, animals, color terms, etc.), or to the conceptual area (the so-called conceptual or significative fields, for example, names of states of mind: feelings of joy, grief, duty, thinking processes, perception). Since many words are polysemantic, they can be included in different semantic fields and groups, as a result of which relationships arise that hold these fields and groups together: not only close, but also distant, even opposite meanings are connected.

1.2 Lexico-semantic groups of words in the Russian language

The linguistic acquisition of objects and phenomena of the external world consists not only of naming them, but also of the desire to classify them. The structuring of the vocabulary of a language occurs on different grounds - strictly linguistic and extra-linguistic. Also M.M. Pokrovsky pointed out that in the lexical system of a language there are various groups or “fields of words.” Some of them are intralingual associations (“by spheres, representations”), others are extralinguistic associations (“by subject areas”). These ideas by M.M. Pokrovsky were developed in modern linguistics when developing the issue of semantic organization of the vocabulary of a language, in particular, in the theory of semantic fields, lexical-semantic and thematic groups. The problem of the semantic organization of the lexical system of a language is today one of the most difficult in linguistics, which has not yet received its final solution, despite the vast literature. That is why there is still no strict definition of each of the named semantic categories, much less their exhaustive description (despite the fact that no one doubts their linguistic reality). Despite the difference in approaches to the description of these semantic categories, in linguistic works of recent decades there is a clear desire to reveal the interconnectedness and interdependence of their members. The following definitions are usually used as workers. (4, p.151)

Based on linguistic and extra-linguistic features, various groups of words are distinguished. Lexico-semantic group - one and the same part of speech, united by intralingual connections based on interdependent and interconnected elements of meaning. (4, p.152)

Members of the LSG are connected by certain semantic-paradigmatic relations (synonymy, antonymy, all kinds of inclusions, clarifications, differentiation, generalizations of close and/or adjacent meanings). A classic illustration of LSG and the procedure for its isolation was the example of A.A. Ufimtseva, which she cites in her monograph “Experience in studying vocabulary as a system.” In modern Russian, the word “earth” is a polysemantic word. Among its meanings the following stand out: 1) planet; 2) top layer of earth; 3) territory owned by someone; 4) country, state, etc. If you try to schematically represent the semantic structure of this word, you will get a rectangle: the polysemantic word itself is designated by the letter A, its lexical meanings (or LSV) by the letters ai, bi, ci, di, etc. Synonyms for these LSVs are indicated by the letters a2,b2,c2,d2,a3,b3,c3...

A thematic group is a set of words united on the basis of the extra-linguistic commonality of the objects or concepts they denote. (4, p. 153) The basis for identifying a thematic group is a set of objects or phenomena of the external world, united according to a certain characteristic and expressed in different words (cf., for example, a thematic group cow, combining words bull, calf, cowshed, cow shed, shepherd, beef etc.). One of the important features of a thematic group is the heterogeneity of linguistic relations between its members or the absence thereof at all, therefore the loss of one or another word of the thematic group or a change in its meaning does not affect the meanings of other words of this group (for example, the word khrebet in Russian in the thematic group the names of parts of the human body were gradually replaced by the word back, but this did not in any way affect the meanings of the words arm, leg, knee, etc.). The absence of linguistic connections between members of a thematic group does not mean, however, that they have no extra-linguistic connections. Thanks to these extra-linguistic connections, words are combined into thematic groups (in the Russian language, for example, the words spruce, pine, fir, larch are combined, first of all, subject-wise, since the language does not have a separate word to designate coniferous trees, which is one of the features of Russian lexical systems). Thus, a thematic group is a combination of words based not on linguistic lexical-semantic connections, but on extra-linguistic ones, i.e. on the classification of the objects and phenomena of the external world themselves.

The lexical-semantic group (LSG) is the most extensive organization of words in terms of the number of its members, which is united by a common (basic) semantic component. The semantic component includes the same class - the meaning of a word’s belonging to a particular part of speech and the same lexogrammemes - semes, denoting the lexico-grammatical categories of this part of speech. LSG includes, for example, nouns denoting “room furnishings” ( table, chair, sofa, wardrobe, dishes, carpet, refrigerator, TV), adjectives meaning “physical characteristic of a person” ( tall, thin, fat, handsome, old, clumsy), verbs of “visual perception” ( look, look, contemplate, admire, glance, watch, look out) etc.

The main feature of LSG is that its basic component is not represented by the same hyperseme; it usually includes several different generic families ( sofa, chair, armchair o - hyperseme “furniture for lying and sitting”; refrigerator, buffet- hypersema “cabinet for storing food, drinks, etc.”). LSG may include several thematic, hypero-hyponemic and synonymous paradigms. For example: “apartment furnishings” (basic component): sofa, table, chairs, armchairs, cabinet f (hyperseme “furniture”); carpet, rug, path, tapestry(hypersema “covering walls and floors”); lamp, chandelier, sconce(hyperseme “lighting fixtures”) - three thematic paradigms.

Having studied the theory, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Firstly, the lexical-semantic system is characterized by paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. The lexical-semantic system is a set of interconnected elements.

Secondly, lexical-semantic groups of words are characterized by linguistic and non-linguistic relations. Members of the LSG are connected by certain semantic-paradigmatic relations: synonymy, antonymy, clarification, differentiation, etc.

Thirdly, within lexico-semantic groups there are: thematic group, hypernyms and hyponyms. Words within lexical-semantic groups are united by semantic polysemy.

Chapter 2. Groups of words in the names of service points in Tolyatti

2.1 Generic and specific relations of words

In our work, we analyzed the names of cafes, bars, clubs and restaurants, and also identified the following generic and specific relationships of words:

Cafe " Eighth Mile"(Appendix 1, card 49)

A mile is a travel measure of length.

Species concept: mile.

Generic concept: unit measure of length.

Bar « Baobab"(Appendix 1, card 2)

Baobab is a tropical tree.

Species concept: baobab.

Generic concept: tree.

Club " Tower"(Appendix 1, card 1)

A tower is a tall and narrow architectural building.

Species concept: tower.

Generic concept: structure.

Cafe " Night rendezvous"(Appendix 1, card 8)

Rendezvous - date.

Species concept: rendezvous.

Generic concept: meeting.

Cafe "Gzhel"(Appendix 1, card 7)

Species concept: Gzhel.

Generic concept: artistic painting.

Cafe "Conversation"(Appendix 1, card 6)

Conversation - conversation, exchange of opinions.

Species concept: conversation.

Generic concept: communication between people.

Cafe "Birch""(Appendix 1, card 12)

Birch is a deciduous tree with white bark and heart-shaped leaves.

Species concept: birch.

Generic concept: tree.

Cafe "Volzhanka"(Appendix 1, card 10)

Volzhanka is a native or resident of the Volga region.

Species concept: Volzhanka.

Generic concept: resident.

Bar "Charles"(Appendix 1, card 9)

Karl is a male name.

Species concept: Karl.

Generic concept: name.

Bar "Clara"(Appendix 1, card 9)

Clara is a feminine name.

Species concept: Clara.

Generic concept: name.

Restaurant "Harlequin"(Appendix 1, card 15)

Harlequin is a traditional character in the Italian comedy of masks.

Species concept: harlequin.

Generic concept: jester.

Bar "Mirage"(see Appendix 1, card 14)

Mirage is an optical phenomenon, the appearance of imaginary images in the atmosphere.

Species concept: mirage.

Generic concept: phenomenon.

Cafe "Hearth"(see Appendix 1, card 17)

Hearth - a device for setting fire.

Species concept: hearth.

Generic concept: adaptation.

Cafe "Cork"(see Appendix 1, card 47)

Cork is the light and soft porous outer layer of the bark of some trees.

Species concept: cork.

Generic concept: device for blocking.

Club "Sail"(see Appendix 1, card 45)

A sail is a vessel attached to a mast and a cloth inflated by the wind.

Species concept: sail.

Generic concept: means of transportation.

Cafe "Hope"(see Appendix 1, card 21)

Nadezhda is a female name.

Specific concept: Hope.

Generic concept: name.

Restaurant "Mill"(see Appendix 1, card 28)

A mill is a building enterprise with facilities for grinding grain.

Species concept: mill.

Generic concept: structure.

Cafe "Friendship"(see Appendix 1, card 27)

Friendship is a close relationship based on mutual trust.

Species concept: friendship.

Generic concept: relationships between people.

Club "Pyramid"(see Appendix 1, card 26)

A pyramid is a polyhedron whose base is a polygon, and the remaining faces are triangles with a common vertex.

Species concept: pyramid.

Generic concept: building for burial.

Bar "Cleopatra"(see Appendix 1, card 25)

Cleopatra is a feminine name.

Species concept: Cleopatra.

Generic concept: name.

Restaurant "Red Dragon"(see Appendix 1, card 32)

The dragon is a fairy-tale monster in the form of a winged fire-breathing serpent.

Species concept: dragon.

Generic concept: snake.

Restaurant "Effect"(see Appendix 1, card 31)

Effect is the impression made by something on someone.

Species concept: effect.

Generic concept: impressions.

Hotei is the name of a deity.

Species concept: Hotei.

Generic concept: deity.

Cafe "Sogdiana"(see Appendix 1, card 36)

Sogdiana is a female name.

Species concept: Sogdiana.

Generic concept: name.

Cafe "Grad"(see Appendix 1, card 35)

Hail is precipitation in the form of rounded particles of ice.

Specific concept: hail.

Generic concept: type of precipitation.

Cafe "Hippopotamus"(see Appendix 1, card 33)

The hippopotamus is a large artiodactyl mammal living in the freshwater basins of tropical Africa.

Species concept: hippopotamus.

Generic concept: animal.

Cafe "Picnic"(see Appendix 1, card 39)

Picnic is a country pleasure outing for groups.

Species concept: picnic.

Generic concept: type of recreation.

Restaurant "Aquarius"(see Appendix 1, card 38)

Aquarius is a person who is multi-layered and vacuous in his speeches.

Species concept Aquarius.

Generic concept: zodiac sign.

Restaurant "Tolyatti"(see Appendix 1, card 37)

Togliatti is a surname.

Species concept: Tolyatti.

Generic concept: city name, surname.

Cafe "Marusya"(see Appendix 1, card 44)

Marusya is a female name.

Species concept Marusya.

Generic concept: name.

Bar "Northern lights"(see Appendix 1, card 43)

Radiance is a bright light emitted or reflected by something.

Species concept: radiance.

Generic concept: natural phenomenon.

Cafe "Pelican"(see Appendix 1, card 42)

The pelican is a large waterfowl with a long beak and a pouch underneath.

Species concept: pelican.

Generic concept: bird.

Restaurant "Highlander"(see Appendix 1, card 41)

A mountaineer is a resident of the mountains.

Species concept: highlander.

Generic concept: resident.

Cafe "Pier"(see Appendix 1, card 48)

A berth is a place near the shore equipped for parking and servicing ships.

Species concept: pier.

Generic concept: structure.

Cafe - bar "The Golden Fleece"(see Appendix 1, card 18)

Fleece is sheep's wool.

Species concept: fleece.

Generic concept: subject.

Thus, we see that different specific concepts can be attributed to one generic concept. The same word can have different generic and specific meanings.

2.2 Thematic groups of words

Based on the analysis of genus-species relationships, we identified the following thematic groups:

Female names: Nadezhda, Clara, Marusya, Sogdiana, Cleopatra.

Male names: Karl, Tolyatti.

Animal names: hippopotamus, pelican.

Names of gods: Hotei.

Colors: red dragon, golden ball, golden field, golden fleece.

Structures: tower, pyramid, mill, pier, Big Ben.

Fairy-tale theme: near Lukomorye, there once was a red dragon, a forest fairy tale.

Plant names: baobab, birch.

Units of length: eighth mile.

Artistic painting: Gzhel.

Relationships between people: friendship, conversation, night rendezvous.

Names of inhabitants: Highlander, Volzhanka.

Characters: harlequin, red dragon.

Natural phenomena: northern lights, hail.

Types of recreation: picnic.

Imaginary phenomena: mirage.

Name of vehicle: sail.

Lovers of gourmet food: gourmets.

Zodiac sign name: Aquarius.

Means of creating an impression: effect.

Geographical names: Madagascar, Togliatti, Ogni Zhiguli, forest area.

Walk-in and drive-through location: Broadway.

City names: Togliatti.

Plugging for small holes: stopper.

Foreign names: Gambrinus.

A plot of land near a forest plantation: forest area.

Particles of speech: oh, my.

As a result of the analysis, twenty-six thematic groups were identified.

2.3 Lexico-semantic groups of words

Based on the analysis of generic and species relations, thematic groups, the following lexical-semantic groups were identified:

Proper names: Karl and Clara, Big Ben, Zhiguli Lights, Rusich, Nadezhda, Cleopatra, Hotey, Sogdiana, Togliatti, Marusya, Broadway.

The surrounding world includes: hippopotamus, hail, pelican, baobab, birch, forest.

Item characteristics: red dragon, golden field, golden fleece, golden ball.

Fauna: hippopotamus, pelican.

Flora: birch, baobab, woodland.

Visual images: mirage, effect.

Artistic images: Gzhel, Golden Field, Golden Fleece, forest fairy tale, once upon a time, red dragon.

Activities: picnic, night rendezvous.

Objects associated with water: Aquarius, pier, pelican, sail.

Natural phenomenon: northern lights, hail.

Architectural structure: pier, Big Ben, tower, pyramid, mill.

Having studied the practical part, it turned out that the same word can be used in generic and species relations, lexical-semantic and thematic groups. Thus, after analyzing the names of cafes, bars, restaurants and clubs, the following conclusions were made:

Firstly, the words are sorted according to generic and species relations.

Secondly, by thematic groups.

Thirdly, by lexical-semantic groups.

Conclusion

Summing up the results of our research, it can be noted that the assigned tasks were completed.

In the first chapter, we found out that the lexical-semantic system is characterized by paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships and is a set of interconnected elements. A lexical-semantic group is a set of words belonging to the same part of speech, united by intralingual connections based on interdependent and interconnected elements of meaning. Members of the LSG are connected by certain semantic-paradigmatic relations: synonymy, antonymy, clarification, differentiation, etc. Within the lexical-semantic groups, they distinguish: thematic group, hyperonyms and hyponyms. Words within lexical-semantic groups are united by semantic polysemy. A thematic group is a set of words united on the basis of the extra-linguistic commonality of the objects or concepts they denote. The basis for identifying a thematic group is a collection of objects or phenomena of the external world, united according to a certain characteristic and expressed in different words.

The second chapter was devoted to practical research, where it turned out that many words can be simultaneously used in lexical-semantic and thematic groups, generic and species relations.

As a result of the analysis, we found out that restaurants, cafes, bars and clubs use male and female names, names of plants, characters, phenomena, animals, and buildings as names.

Bibliography

1. “Introduction to linguistics”, Yu.S. Maslov - M.: “Higher School”, 1998. - With. 87; With. 96-98.

2. “General linguistics: Structural and social typology of languages”, N.B. Mechkovskaya - M.: “Flinta”, “Science”, 2001. – p.268.

3. “Modern Russian language”, D.E. Rosenthal, I.B. Golub, M.A. Telenkova-M.: “Iris – press”, 1998. – p.11-12.

4. “Introduction to linguistics”, T.I. Vendina – M.: “Higher School”, 2001. - With. 146-150.

5. “General linguistics”, A.A. Girutsky - Minsk: Tetrasites, 2003. - With. 131-132.

6. “Semasiological research in the field of ancient languages”, M.M. Pokrovsky - M.: 1986. – p.82.

7. “Modern Russian language: Lexicon”, D.N. Shmelev - M.: 1977

8. “Introduction to linguistics”, L.R. Zinder – M.: “Higher School”, 1987

9. “Modern Russian language”, P.A. Lekant – M.: “Droba”, 2001. - With. 31-32.

10. “Modern Russian language”, E.I. Dibrova - M.: "Academy", 2001.

11. “Introduction to linguistics”, A.A. Reformatsky – M.: “Aspect - Press”, 1998

12. “Modern Russian language: Vocabulary and phraseology of the modern Russian literary language”, Yu.P. Solodub, F.B. Albrecht - M.: “Flinta”, “Science”, 2002.

13. “Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language”, S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova – M.: “Azbukovnik”, 2002.

14. www. Bankreferatov/ search/ referat. ru

15. www. Yandex/search/magazinbook. ru

16. www. Rambler/ search/ ref/ ru

Application

Words in the names of service points in Tolyatti.

Harlequin– a traditional character of the Italian “comedy of masks”; clown, jester.

Baobab- a tropical tree with a very thick trunk.

Tower- a tall and narrow architectural structure.

Hippopotamus- a large artiodactyl mammal living in the freshwater basins of tropical Africa.

Birch- a deciduous tree with white bark and heart-shaped leaves.

Conversation- conversation, exchange of opinions.

Aquarius- a person who is verbose and meaningless in his speeches and writings.

Volzhanka- a native or resident of the Volga region.

Gzhel– products of folk art ceramics.

Highlander- resident of the mountains

hail– precipitation in the form of rounded ice particles.

Gourmet– a lover and connoisseur of gourmet food.

The Dragon- a fairy-tale monster in the form of a winged fire-breathing serpent.

Friendship– close relationships based on mutual trust, affection, and common interests.

Mill- an enterprise, a building with equipment for grinding grain.

mile– a travel measure of length, different in different countries.

Mirage– optical phenomenon; the appearance in the atmosphere of imaginary images of distant objects.

Niva- sown field.

Hearth- a device for starting and maintaining a fire.

Sail- a vessel mounted on a mast and a wind-blown canvas made of canvas or dense fabric.

Pelican- a large waterfowl with a long beak and a sac under it.

Pyramid– a polyhedron, the base of which is a polygon, and the remaining faces are triangles with a common vertex.

Planet- a celestial body moving around the sun and glowing with its reflected light.

Berth- a place near the shore, equipped for parking and servicing of ships, for mooring boats.

Cork– the light and soft porous outer layer of the bark of some woody plants.

Rendezvous– a meeting, mainly by appointment, of two or more persons.

Fleece- sheep's wool.

Shine- bright light emitted or reflected by something.

Fairy tale- a narrative, usually folk-poetic work about fictional persons and events, mainly involving magical, fantastic forces.

Ball– part of space limited by a sphere.

Effect- an impression made by someone or something on someone.

1. Thematic groups of words

The semantics of computer terminological units is very diverse. Let's look at the groups into which, in our opinion, all computer jargon can be divided.

1) Words denoting the names of equipment, parts, and main parts of the computer:

eye - monitor;

proc - processor;

Carlson - fan (computer cooler);

screw - hard drive (hard drive - storage medium);

pedal - keyboard;

rope, lace - wire.

2) Terms denoting the names of software products, programs, commands and files:

progs - programs;

living creature, worm, beetle, beast - computer virus;

glitch - error, failure in the program;

ASKA - ICQ program (for correspondence on the global network);

dosya - disk operating system DOS;

Aibolit is an antivirus program.

3) Name of operations and individual actions:

pour - send a letter by e-mail;

make - to do something (from the English "make" - to do);

crash - break;

upgrade - update;

kill - erase, remove something;

arj - use the arj archiver.

wrap - perform archiving (compression).

4) Messages that the system issues in response to user requests:

disabled girl - incorrect indication of the device name (from the English invalid device);

gamover - the end of the game (from the ant. game over);

hung - there was a failure in the system.

5) Name of people engaged in this or that type of activity:

hacker - programmer-cracker;

user - user (from the English user);

kettle - inexperienced user;

arcade player - a fan of arcade-style games.

6) Name of companies involved in the production of equipment:

Bima - IBM company;

Plumbing - equipment from Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation;

My shoe is Microsoft.

The scope of computer jargon covers people who work professionally with computers and just users, that is, it is quite wide. Therefore, we can talk about the following functions performed by computer jargon:

1) A means of self-expression (for ease of communication between users).

2) Expression of emotions, evaluative attitude (for example, butyavka - boot floppy disk, brake - failure in the program, insanity - a sharp lack of memory).

3) Economy of language, since in computer jargon there are many words that are equivalent to cumbersome words (for example, chat is a special program on the global network that allows you to have a conversation in the present tense; weed (English: Roll - survey) to conduct a survey of network users).

2. Lexico-semantic connections

In computer jargon, as in the entire Russian language, there are ambiguous and unambiguous words.

Most computer jargons, some names of tools, professions, types of programs, etc. are unambiguous words. For example, the words gag, cut down, kill, doomer and others are unambiguous. A very small number are occupied by ambiguous words; according to our calculations, this is approximately 5% of the total number of jargons we studied. In our opinion, this is due to the fact that in general computer jargon was created for ease of communication between people and, precisely for this reason, should not have multi-valued units. The absence of polysemous jargons is also due to the fact that the words in question appeared recently, and polysemy is a sign of a long life in a language.

Animal - 1) Animator Pro program; 2) any program of enormous size that makes unreasonable demands on the computer configuration.

Beetle - 1) error in the program (bug); 2) fan in the computer power supply; 3) computer virus.

In a polysemantic word, the main meaning of the word and its derivative meanings are distinguished. New meanings arise for a word as a result of the transfer of a name (the outer shell of a word - a sound and letter sequence) from one object of reality to other objects.

The phenomenon of antonymy was not identified in the material examined. In our opinion, this is also explained by the fact that the language of computer jargon appeared relatively recently and has not yet had time to firmly establish itself in the Russian language.

As for synonyms, according to our calculations, they occur quite often, since the main functions of synonyms are clarification and replacement.

Lexical synonyms are words that sound different, but have similar or identical meanings. In most cases, synonyms, denoting the same thing, characterize it from different points of view. In the field of computer technology, there is a special synonymy. It is known that in the field of special vocabulary, synonymy has its own specifics: there are no differences between synonyms in terms of content, this position is confirmed by the following examples: computer virus - living creature, beetle, worm, beast; computer - computer, hardware, box; hard drive - hard, screw, heavy drive.

Slang vocabulary has become firmly established in the language system. This is supported by the fact that it became the basis for the formation of other units, that is, it forms word-forming chains and nests: glitch - glitch - glitch.

Thus, slang vocabulary is a subsystem of the language and is characterized by the phenomena of synonymy and polysemy, which are widely represented in the sphere of general language use.

Specialists. It should be noted that the names of persons of other professions, which occur in this group of English jargon, are not typical for professional jargon in general. In general, in the process of analyzing the thematic organization of computer technology jargon, attention is drawn to the presence of non-specialized concepts in its composition. As an example, we can cite the Russian jargons used “...

...: "vaxa" (VAX operating system) and "sivukha" (slang name for the computer game "Civilization" - "Civilization"), as well as "pentyukh" - a Pentium modification computer. Many words of computer jargon are formed according to word-formation models adopted in the Russian language. For example, the jargon “flying” is formed in an affixed way. From the verb to fly using the characteristic...

In general, the language game in its various variants is more typical of the speech of representatives of the technical intelligentsia of young and middle age, and these are the carriers of computer jargon. According to gender linguistic research (Erofeeva 2000: 89-90), in most cases, men, compared to women, know better and use jargon more often. In their speech behavior, women, in...

And professionally limited." Some researchers show a new round of vulgarization of the literary language, for which there is every reason. Colloquial and slang vocabulary is freely used in the media, including on the radio. "One of the hallmarks of journalistic texts of a certain period is the nature of the figurative uses of special scientific, special...

construction vocabulary linguistic terminology

Words reflect the connections that exist between objects and phenomena in reality itself. At the same time, words are units of language, and there are actual linguistic connections between them: they are combined into certain lexical-semantic groups, in each language in their own way they articulate certain segments of reality (for example, in Russian the names of hills: mountain, hill , hillock, mound, hill verbs of motion: go, go, fly, swim, crawl, which does not find full correspondence in other languages).

All words (polysemantic - in each of their meanings) are in certain relationships with other words. One of the main tasks of semasiology as one of the branches of lexicology is to clarify those semantic oppositions that exist between various words, including synonymous and antonymous. It is the opposition of the meanings of different owls that makes it possible to identify the essential semantic features that determine the given meaning of the word.

The ability to combine a word with other words is closely related to its meaning. For polysemantic words, it is compatibility that determines that the word appears in one meaning or another (cf.: dig the earth, lie on the ground, swim to the earth, the earth revolves around the sun, etc., where the earth appears in its different meanings) .

The tasks of lexicology also include defining a word as the basic unit of language, clarifying the connection between the meaning of a word and a concept, and identifying different types of word meanings.

One of the main tasks that lexicology is designed to solve is the establishment of various types of systemic relationships that exist within various groups of vocabulary, the establishment of those objective indicators that combine words with each other.

The individual attachment of lexemes to various objects and phenomena of extra-linguistic reality, as emphasized by D.N. Shmelev, makes the relationship between them extremely diverse and complex. Therefore, any attempt to systematize these relationships, to establish certain types of connections between the individual meanings of polysemantic words cannot but be a certain simplification of these connections. However, this does not mean that any kind of systematization in this area is generally impossible or unjustified (the complexity and variety of the material being studied precisely requires its certain systematization), but it must be borne in mind that the proposed schemes only to a certain extent reflect the true essence of the connections under consideration, and therefore they are almost always conditional.

As is known, the vocabulary of a language is not a mechanical sum of individual words isolated from each other in lexico-semantic terms. The question of the lexical-semantic relationship of words, the combination of words into various lexical-semantic groups or series has long been raised in the linguistic literature. For example, M. M. Pokrovsky once wrote: “Words and their meanings do not live a life separate from each other, but are united, regardless of our consciousness, into various groups, and the basis for the grouping is similarity or direct opposition in basic meaning. It is already clear a priori that such words have similar or parallel semasiological changes and in their history influence one another; it is also clear that these words are used in similar syntactic combinations.” Pokrovsky rightly believed that in every language at a given stage of its development there are semantic groups of words characteristic only of that language, and the uniqueness of each language in this regard can only be discovered through comparative study. However, M. M. Pokrovsky was unable to even approximately define lexical-semantic groups of words as categories of the vocabulary of a language, or to distinguish them from other word connections. Influenced by M. Breal's views on the “Mutual Association of Words,” M. M. Pokrovsky considered the problem from a psychological position, mixing the “circles of ideas” denoted by words with the actual meanings of words. He saw in vocabulary, in the formation of new words, the same effect of analogy (a kind of “universal semasiological law”) as in phonetics and grammar. In essence, the lexicological problem he posed is interpreted in grammatical terms. Thus, the originality of lexical-semantic groups as vocabulary phenomena remained undisclosed.

Among the various views on the nature of the semantic connections of words expressed over the past two or three decades by Western European linguists, a prominent place is occupied by the so-called “semantic field” theory of Joost Trier, which has found many followers. According to Trier, when pronouncing any word, a feeling of another word or other words, and the semantic relationship of “neighboring” with the spoken word, emerges in the consciousness of the speaker and listener. This proximity of words to each other is caused by the similarity or opposition of their meanings and the concepts they denote. Based on similarity or opposition, all concepts contained in language are divided into more or less closed groups, circles or “blocks” of concepts. Each concept is real only due to the presence of its connection, correlation with other concepts of a given group. In turn, any change in one concept entails a restructuring of the relationships between concepts and, consequently, a change and even the death of other concepts in this group, as well as the emergence of new concepts. The range of concepts and the mechanism of relationships and changes present in it was called the “semantic field”. Each concept has its own verbal sign, each “semantic field” has its own “sign or lexical field”. Just as a red signal has no meaning without signals of other colors, a word has meaning only as part of a semantic field, since in isolation the boundaries of its meaning could not be determined. For example, the meaning of the word mangelhaft becomes clear only because next to it there is geniigend-ungeniigend, and geniigend correlates with gut and sehr gut, etc. The entire vocabulary of the language is divided into groups of words, into “semantic fields”. The totality of all these groups constitutes the lexical-semantic system of the language. The “semantic fields” themselves are connected to each other to varying degrees, in particular, according to the principle of hierarchical subordination (wider and narrower “fields”). Each “field” changes its structure over time, therefore, the lexical structure of the language as a whole changes. The task of lexicology of modern language is the study of “semantic fields” and their relationships with each other in a synchronic context, the task of historical lexicology is the study of these “fields” in a diachronic context.

Trier's theory of the “semantic field” is in many ways unacceptable to us. According to Trier, language is a system of intellectual symbols that do not at all reflect objects of the real world. Objects of the real world are supposedly only ideal units, depending on the nature of the division of the structure of linguistic symbols. The idealistic basis of this kind of reasoning is quite well revealed by Marxist philosophy, and when applied to the nature of symbols, primarily in V. I. Lenin’s classic work “Marxism and Empirio-Criticism.” Trier believes that outside the “semantic field” there can be no meaning of a word at all. The word follows the essence of all signs and symbols, and this essence lies in the fact that the designated content and the “volume of the sign” of this content are determined by the place that the sign receives in the “semantic field”. However, the structure of the “semantic field”, along with the development of language, is constantly changing, primarily due to changes in the meaning of an individual component of the “field,” i.e., an individual word. It turns out to be a vicious circle: a word with its meanings exists only thanks to a certain place it occupies in the “semantic field”, is determined by this “field”, and at the same time the word changes arbitrarily, introducing changes into the structure of the semantic “field”. Since the actual causes of linguistic changes remain undisclosed, the very nature of these changes in the theory of the semantic “field” loses its regularity and is declared the result of incomprehensible, self-sufficient mental and psychological processes.

In principle, there is nothing new in Trier’s idea of ​​the mechanism of development of the “semantic field”. There is a “semantic balance” between the individual components of the “field”, based on comparison and opposition of word meanings. When one of the components (or several components) undergoes a change, the “semantic balance” is disrupted, shifts occur in the meanings of the words of the entire “field”, which leads to a new equilibrium, to the formation of a changed structure of the “semantic field”. The theory of the “semantic field” is one of the varieties of structuralism, so to speak, its “semantic” variety, and is based on the theoretical constructions of F. de Saussure. Trier himself points to this.

Although, as stated above, the idealistic basis of the theory of the “semantic field” is unacceptable for us, the private observations of Trier and his followers, based on the study of specific lexical material, deserve some attention. This refers to the establishment of individual lexical-semantic groups of words in German and other languages, showing the interrelations and mutual limitations of the meanings of words in certain lexical-semantic groups and changes in these groups throughout their history.

The question of lexical-semantic groups of words has been raised by many other linguists, but has not yet received any sufficient theoretical coverage.

Lexico-semantic groups of words are combinations of two, several or many words according to their lexical meanings. For clarity, it should be said that by lexical meaning we understand the objective (in the broad sense) content of the word, the correlation of the word to the objectively existing world of things, processes, phenomena, etc. The lexical meaning is based on a concept, which, however, is not identical to the meaning . The lexical meanings of words may be close to each other (cf. rain and drizzle, etc.), or may not have any connections with each other at all (apple and turtle, blood and firewood, etc.). Of course, this applies to both direct and figurative meanings of words, as well as their figurative uses. The connections between words according to their lexical meanings are very diverse and due to various reasons

To try to determine what lexical-semantic groups of words are, as a linguistic phenomenon, as a product of the historical development of a particular language or dialect, it is necessary to outline the boundaries of these groups, separating them from other categories in contact with them.

First of all, the boundaries between the thematic classification of vocabulary and lexical-semantic groups of words turn out to be unclear. In the practice of lexicological research, when not a single word is studied, but a collection of many words, vocabulary material, for various reasons, is usually classified according to the content of the concepts it denotes, otherwise by topics or areas of use, almost regardless of the relationships the words have to each other. their meanings. There are many examples of this, both from old and new linguistic literature. O. Schrader in his famous work “Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Grundzuge einer Kultur und Volkergeschichte Alteuropas” allocates, for example, the names of parts of the human body in a special section. However, what semantic connections can there be between words such as tooth (Zahn), back (Rucken), liver (Leber) and others related to this broad lexical topic. The only thing that unites these words is that they are the names of a certain group of realities. R. F. Brandt in the article “Features of the prehistoric life of the Slavs according to language data” distinguishes the following sections: housing, agriculture, gardening, cattle breeding, hunting and fishing, clothing, tailoring and footwear, carpentry and others. In the work of I. Filin “Vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the ancient Kiev era” there are sections: words denoting field and garden crops, words denoting the state and technology of agriculture, terms of cattle breeding, beekeeping, hunting and fishing, etc. This kind of combination of words, based not on lexical-semantic connections, but on the classification of objects and phenomena themselves, can be called thematic vocabulary groups. The study of vocabulary by its thematic groups is legitimate not only because of methodological convenience in presenting heterogeneous lexical material.

The study of the state and development of words denoting various groups of objects and phenomena of nature and society is important in itself, which does not require special evidence. Therefore, it is common in the practice of lexicological work. However, it should be noted that linguists, based not on the semantic laws of vocabulary, but on one or another grouping of objects and phenomena, very often do not have strong linguistic foundations for their classifications and are on the verge of losing the subject of their science. For example, an extensive thematic group of words called “everyday vocabulary” (or vocabulary denoting everyday objects and phenomena) is often put forward. The boundaries of this group are extremely vague, since everyday objects and phenomena usually belong to various, often special, types of production, ideological superstructures, etc.

It is possible to classify vocabulary into thematic groups of words for a variety of purposes, and in each such case the composition of the group will change almost independently of the lexical-semantic connections of the words. For example, you can separate the names of fish into a special thematic group, or you can merge this same group into a larger group of names of gill animals, which, in addition to fish, includes crayfish, mollusks, amphibians in the initial period of their development, and other classes. Classification combinations can be very different. Thematic groups of words often coincide or may coincide with industry vocabulary, for example, with the vocabulary of certain types of production, science, etc. The difference here will lie in the presence or absence of special, terminological use of words and the degree of their prevalence in the language. This, of course, does not deny the specificity of the term and terminological systems. This is not about this specificity.

When comparing thematic, usually extensive, groups with lexical-semantic groups of words, usually limited in composition, the difference between them seems to become clear. In fact, if we consider the thematic group “names of parts of the human body,” we can easily find that the semantic relationships between these names will be different. The words back and liver, head and leg, tooth and elbow, etc. denote different realities that are not similar to each other, and are combined into one thematic group because they represent the names of parts of the human body. If in the history of a language, for one reason or another, within a thematic group, one word is replaced by another, then such a replacement does not lead to any changes in the meanings, stylistic coloring, etc. of words of the same group, which in itself indicates almost about “neutral” or “zero” semantic connections between words of a group, or more precisely, about the almost complete absence of such connections in any language at a given stage of its development. If the Old Russian word hrb't (back), as a result of semantic clarification in modern Russian, in its main meaning means? spine? and the etymologically unclear spina is gradually replaced, this change does not in any way affect the meanings and use of the words head, mouth, etc. Meanwhile, the close semantic connection in the modern Russian language between the words spina and ridge is completely obvious. In common parlance, both of these words are interchangeable in a certain speech context: cf. “put the sack on your back” and “put the sack on your back” Cf. also a stable connection of the words arms and legs, colloquial arms-legs (body limbs), without arms, without legs (about a cripple who has lost limbs), or figuratively the eyes and ears of someone (“scouts are the eyes and ears of the commander”), etc. etc. Consequently, within the framework of one thematic group there are smaller, but closely connected lexical-semantic groups of words.

And yet, only one empirical comparison of thematic and lexical-semantic groups cannot solve the problem. For example, when we are dealing with a thematic group of words that is limited in composition and indivisible or almost indivisible, the situation becomes very complicated. The difficulty of distinguishing between thematic and lexical-semantic groups of words is determined, first of all, by the difficulty of separating vocabulary, as a specific phenomenon of language, and extra-linguistic content.

As you know, in words and combinations of words in a sentence, the results of the work of thinking and the successes of human cognitive activity are registered and consolidated. The vocabulary of the language reflects the almost limitless variety of realities known by human society objectively, regardless of our consciousness, of existing objects, phenomena, properties, qualities, actions, etc., of the connections and relationships between them. Naturally, therefore, the word denotes phenomena of reality not in isolation, but as an integral element of the lexical system of the language, and has diverse connections with other words.

However, these connections between words, reflecting objective reality, have a specific refraction in each language at a given stage of its development, determined by the historically established internal laws of the language (which, of course, does not exclude the similarity of languages ​​in this regard). The commonality between thematic and lexical-semantic groups of words is that both groups reflect the known objective reality. In this sense, any lexical-semantic group of words always has its own “topic”, even if we are talking about a group of synonyms very close to each other. In this regard, there cannot be a division of words into thematic and lexical-semantic groups. Moreover, any lexical-semantic group of words is included in one or another thematic association of words, being its integral part. Thematic correlation is one (but not the only and not the decisive) feature of a lexical-semantic group of words. The difference between these types of word connections is determined by the fact that lexical-semantic groups of words are a product of the laws and patterns of development of the lexical semantics of a language, while thematic groups of words, their very presence or absence in any language, their composition, depend only on the level knowledge of a particular people - the creator and speaker of the language, from the ability to classify phenomena of reality that have received their dictionary designations. If we do not believe that the meaning of a word is identical to a concept, then we also should not identify the connections between the meanings of words and the connections between concepts. This approach to the matter, as we see it, allows us to outline the features of lexical-semantic groups of words, their linguistic specificity, including those numerous cases when the researcher’s field of view includes a group of words limited in its composition, which can simultaneously be both thematic and lexical. -semantic.

Let's take, for example, the common nouns of settlements. In modern Russian, these are the words city, suburb, suburb, village, settlement, town, village, seltso, settlement, posad, village, hamlet, hamlet, settlement, repair and some others. Can these words be classified as thematic groups of words? Undoubtedly, it is possible, if we keep in mind only the classification of realities denoted by the indicated words. However, between these words there are semantic connections that are absent in typical (usually extensive) thematic groups of words. (Common nouns of settlements have one common name - settlement, which, denoting a generic concept, can in speech replace all other words of this group, as words denoting specific concepts. However, lexical-semantic groups of words differ from thematic groups not only and not so much by the presence of generic and species relationships in them. The word pine and the word apricot denote species concepts in relation to the word tree, just as the word crucian carp and flounder in relation to the word fish, but if there were no word apricot or words flounder, then in large groups of names of trees and fish, nothing would change in the meanings of these names, with the exception of a quantitative decrease in these thematic groups of words. Also, the growth of vocabulary in thematic groups does not in itself have any effect on the ratio already established generic and specific concepts.The presence in the lexical-semantic group of words of a word denoting a generic concept is not even necessary. For example, in antonyms such as light and darkness, the semantic connection between which is completely obvious.

The relationships between words in thematic groups are built only on external relationships between concepts, and for different classification purposes, words can be combined and separated, which does not affect their meaning in any significant way.

A different matter is lexical-semantic groups of words, which represent an internal, specific phenomenon of language, determined by the course of its historical development. A striking example of this is the synonymous categories of words. Each synonymous group of words in a certain language at a certain stage of its history is so closely semantically united that its components cannot be arbitrarily classified without violating the existing relationships between them. This is understandable, since synonymous words have one meaning (independently or depending on the “speech context”, types of phrases, phraseological units, etc.), complicated by emotional and expressive coloring, various stylistic features, or several meanings, which in They basically coincide with each other and differ only in shades. Otherwise, a synonymous group of words denotes one concept. Wed. linguistics - linguistics - linguistics, airplane - airplane, near - nearby - nearby, Ukrainian. baba - old woman - grandma - old woman - granny, Old Russian. horse - komon - horse, etc. Synonymous relations are violated if different meanings of the same polysemantic words are compared. Compare dear (in the sense of being related by blood) and dear, which are not synonyms and may not even have direct semantic connections in certain speech contexts (“his own father was his enemy”). By the way, insufficient consideration or misunderstanding of the fact that synonyms denote one concept leads to many misunderstandings in the definition of synonymous groups of words, of which many examples could be given. Wed. Typical examples of this kind of misunderstanding are in the textbook “Modern Russian Literary Language” by Finkel and Bazhenov. In this textbook, for example, the words house - hut - hut - tent, etc., denoting different realities, are included in one synonymous group. In Abramov’s “Dictionary of Russian Synonyms”, arbitrarily combined groups of words are very often declared synonyms (a typical example: tree - beam - log - club - former - floor - stump firebrand and other similarly selected words).

The study of the history of synonymous groups of words, in particular, in a comparative historical sense (it is known that the composition of the components and the relationship between these components of the same synonymous groups, even in closely related languages, are not always the same) is one of the important tasks of lexicology.

A less striking example of close semantic connections between words are antonyms, which are unthinkable one without the other, without opposing meanings, just as the existence of a separate, incomparable, isolated synonym is unthinkable. Synonymous and antonymic relations are two important types of semantic connections of words within a particular lexical-semantic group, however, the matter is not limited to these connections. There are other, undoubtedly diverse, semantic relationships between words. The words say and speak are not synonyms, since they mean, although very close, but different concepts and, moreover, have differences in their individual meanings in verbal form. Interchangeability of words (usual with synonyms; in this case, it is sharply limited, if not completely impossible. “He speaks Russian perfectly” - in general he has an excellent command of Russian oral speech, and “he will say it perfectly in Russian” - he will deliver a speech, express himself and etc., using oral Russian speech, in any specific case. Both words, denoting similar concepts, complement each other so that the existence of one without the other in the modern Russian language is unthinkable. At the same time, to say and speak, denoting certain initial concepts are closely related to tell, pronounce, pronounce, talk, chat, say, etc., complementing them semantically and stylistically. All these words form one lexical-semantic group in which say and talk are supporting, dominant components, since they express basic meanings.The history of this group of words is very indicative of the relationships that exist within a particular lexical-semantic group. In the ancient Russian language, at least in the sphere of writing, the most common words from this group were speeches and verbs, closely related to each other and to relations of the verbal form. If the verb of speech was undoubtedly widely used in oral speech, then verbatim was a bookish lexical element. In addition to the indicated words, Old Russian monuments know molviti (usually coinciding in meaning with verbat), kazati, skazati (with the meanings tell, report, narrate, convey, i.e., not entirely coinciding with the meanings of speech), “descriptive” narrate, rare, subsequently disappeared acts, speaking (approximately unambiguous verb, but usually used in the sense of slandering someone, reproaching), etc. The bookish nature of verbatim led to the fact that this word succumbed more and more to the pressure of colloquial molviti and speak, and the latter gradually lost its particular meaning of reproach, slander and increasingly emerged as a word with a general, basic meaning. The displacement of the verb also undermined the position of the word speech, which was replaced by the word say, which gradually acquired a general meaning. The replacement of key words contributed to a serious restructuring of all components of this lexical-semantic group in the history of the Russian language.

The words day and night are to a certain extent contrasting in their meanings, but are unlikely to be antonyms in the full sense, since they act as private quantities in relation to the word day. Along with the semantic contrast, there appear here the relations of the specific to the generic, which in this lexical-semantic group, due to the limited composition of its components, are of an essential nature.

The relationship between the words say and speak, day and night can be defined as the relationship of such close proximity of their meanings, without which the very existence of these words is unthinkable, at least at a certain stage of language development. These are a kind of lexical-semantic fusions in language.

The relationship between the words say and speak, on the one hand, and the words tell, talk, pronounce, talk, pronounce, chat and others like them can be defined, so the relationship between close meanings that complement and clarify each other, the latter both historically and as of this time, they are, as it were, derivatives of the first. Of course, we are talking here not about word-formation, but about semantic derivation, since leading meanings can be accompanied by meanings that are not necessarily expressed by single-root words. There is no lexical-semantic fusion in this case, but there is a semantic dependence of the second words on the first, as well as vice versa. Without supporting words, the general semantic idea of ​​the lexical-semantic group would not be expressed, and without derivative words this idea would be impoverished.

The noted connections (actually linguistic connections) are either not present at all in thematic combinations of words, or they can be random, unstable, caused only by some particular specific circumstances. However, as already mentioned above, there is not and cannot be a gap between thematic and lexical-semantic groups.) Each lexical-semantic group has its own “topic”, but not every classification association of words on a particular topic represents a given in in the language itself, a combination of meanings (synonymous, antonymic, interconnected-clarifying, etc.).

The main, decisive reason for changes in language are changes in the social life of people, since language is directly related to production and any other human activity. These kinds of changes in terms of the analysis of lexical-semantic groups can most clearly be traced in words denoting objects. Let us turn to the common nouns of settlements mentioned above.

The semantic dependence of words on each other, their semantic interconnection presupposes the presence of different types of close proximity, partial, sometimes complete matches or oppositions of the lexical meanings of words.

Construction in our country, especially in the countryside, will lead to serious changes in the group of common names of settlements. Words such as posad, pochinok, vyselok, settlement are outdated and have actually moved into the category of so-called historical terms. The difference between a village and a village now lies only in the fact that a village is a large collective farm village, and a village is a collective farm village smaller than a village. However, this difference is beginning to disappear. Both words enter into synonymous relationships. As noted above, the use of the word settlement has especially expanded. Its meaning has also expanded. A settlement is not only an urban-type settlement, which, with further growth, can become a city (many settlements, as you know, are renamed cities). Wed. also a state farm village, a village at the MTS, a village of an enlarged collective farm, etc.

Thus, the dependence of the meanings of words on each other, on their place in the group to which they belong, their immediate semantic proximity, partial or almost complete coincidence of meanings, the possibility of their interchangeability under certain conditions - all this gives us reason to determine the given names of settlements as a lexical-semantic group of words. This conclusion is confirmed by comparative historical data.

In the early monuments of the Old Russian literary language (XI-XIII centuries) common nouns of settlements are used: city (grad), place, suburb, settlement, village. Before pointing out the semantic connections between these words, let us recall the features of meaning and use. The word gorod in the ancient Russian era still retains its archaic meaning: “fenced fortified place?” From this meaning developed “fortress,” the “central part of the city fortified with walls and ditches.” After strengthening the fortress, the entire urban settlement began to be called a city. City - ?urban settlement as a whole (together with the fortress)? in ancient Rus' the phenomenon is very early, as evidenced by many facts. The duality of the meaning of the word city. as we will see below, played a significant role in the changes that took place in the lexical-semantic group of words we analyzed. In contrast to the word city, the word place is a very polysemantic word meaning “urban settlement?” is rarely used, and only in translated literature. The word suburb, in contrast to the modern Russian language, did not mean a settlement adjacent to the territory of a large city, but a city economically and politically gravitating towards the main city of the feudal land (for example, Ladoga is a suburb of Novgorod). Consequently, the word suburb also in the Old Russian era was semantically dependent on the word gorod.

It is difficult to establish the exact meaning of the word settlement based on early writing. This is some kind of settlement, the difference from others is unclear. The most common name for a rural settlement was the word selo (reduce, village). Its synonym was the word vys, which already in the ancient Russian literary language of the early period had a pronounced bookish character. It is usually found in translated (almost exclusively church) texts. However, we cannot say with certainty that the word all was no longer used in living folk speech in the 11th-13th centuries.

Thus, the most common and “supporting” words in their meaning in the Old Russian language were city, village (and its book synonym vys). The contrast, or more precisely, the distinctive juxtaposition of the words gorod and selo (v's) was common.

As stated above, in ancient Russian translated literature the place was a synonym for the word city, and in the original literature it meant some kind of village. It is known that in feudal cities the presence of a fortified center, behind whose walls and ditches the suburbs were located, was of great importance. The duality of the meaning of the word city necessitated lexical clarification, that is, the formation of new words. Such words began to appear quite early: detints, pskovsk. cream, chrome, etc. - city fortress. In southern Rus', the word gorod was most often retained for this meaning. City buildings behind the walls and ditches of the city fortress gradually begin to be designated by the word place. This word then became in the Ukrainian language (not without the influence of Western Slavic languages, primarily Polish, in which the semantic process proceeded similarly) as a generalized common name for the city. Thus, the development of the Old Russian words gorod and place in their semantic relationship led to different results in the Russian and Ukrainian languages, which was reflected in the features of the lexical-semantic group of common nouns for settlements in the Russian and Ukrainian languages.

The word pogost, also widespread mainly in Northern Russian writing, was polysemantic: “settlement?”, volost? okrug?, “church along with houses, land and a cemetery with it?”. Thus, it was included in the lexical-semantic group of names of settlements with only one meaning, and its connections with other words of this group turned out to be unstable, so pogost ultimately retained only its last meaning (later the meaning of “cemetery in general?” also varied). and became part of a new group of words: cemetery, graveyard, etc.

As a result of long historical development, the lexical-semantic group of common names of settlements, although it has retained a common basis in the closely related Russian and Ukrainian languages, has some differences both in its vocabulary and in the meanings of words. If we take the main words of this group, we get: Russian. city, town, hamlet, family, hamlet. These differences are due to the history of the designated realities themselves, but not only this, but also the internal development of the languages ​​themselves: the history of each individual word.

The examples discussed above, of course, cannot exhaust the variety of semantic connections of words in the huge number of lexical-semantic groups that exist and have existed in the Russian language. However, it seems to me that these examples shed some light on some features of lexical-semantic groups of words in their difference from thematic vocabulary associations. Lexical-semantic groups of words represent linguistic units themselves, a product of the historical development of a particular language. Words, expressing their own meanings, within the same lexical-semantic group, at the same time, turn out to be interconnected by relations that are not indifferent to their own meanings. These are relations of synonymy, antonymy, any kind of clarification, differentiation and generalization of close or adjacent meanings, etc., changes in these relations caused by various reasons have an impact on the development of the meaning of a single word (the meaning expands, as can be seen in the example of the word wash away, one way or another changes), on the very composition of the lexical-semantic group and its future fate (growth or narrowing of the number of components of the group or its collapse, replacement of some words with others). Based only on the analysis of thematic associations of words, a linguist can make various kinds of conclusions and assumptions (for example, about the state of agriculture among the ancient Slavs) that are important for the historical study of the language, but he will have no reason to judge the internal patterns of vocabulary development. Analysis of lexical-semantic groups of words, on the contrary, makes it possible to determine one of the important internal patterns of vocabulary development.

Of course, we are well aware that what has been said above is still far from sufficient to solve the very difficult problem posed here, but, as it seems to us, these preliminary observations and comments may turn out to be useful, at least for further discussion of the not yet covered question of the similarities and differences between thematic and lexical-semantic groups of words.

Lexico-semantic groups of words, of course, are not isolated from each other. It can be assumed that connections between them are carried out in two main ways: firstly, through a kind of parallelism or contact of the entire circle of meanings of one group with the circle of meanings of other groups; secondly, through various semantic connections of one member of the group with other words not included in this group. These methods can also be implemented in combined form. Let's take for example the group bitter-sour-sweet - words denoting taste sensations. The word delicious is undoubtedly semantically related to these words. However, this connection is of a different kind than the connection between the words of the indicated group. Bitter, sour, and sweet can be tasty (or tasteless, tasteless). The word tasty is included in the group: tasty-tasteless-tasteless-appetizing-unappetizing-tasty (cf. tidbit in the literal meaning), etc.

The connections between these groups lie on different semantic planes and are based not on similarity or opposition, but on the contiguity of meanings. There are no mutual substitutions, synonymous and antonymic relationships between the words of these different groups.

Semantic connections of one member of a group with words not included in this group exist primarily due to the common meaning of a polysemantic word and the common meaning of the original (root) word and its derivatives.

If we also take into account the diverse figurative uses of words, the possibilities of which are almost unlimited, then it becomes even more obvious how incorrect are the ideas about the semantic isolation of words, about the absence of patterns in the development of the vocabulary of a language. From word to word, from one lexical-semantic group of words to another, various semantic threads stretch. The entire vocabulary of a language is a vast and complex combination of words and lexical-semantic groups of words, historically formed on the basis of semantic relationships and acquiring enormous significance thanks to grammar.

As stated above, semantic relationships between words also exist in connection with the preservation of the common meaning of the original (root) word and its derivatives. The word beat is included in the lexical-semantic group beat-pound-hit, etc. Its derivative battle, which retains a semantic connection with it, is a member of another lexical-semantic group of words: battle-battle-fight, etc. All this is quite obvious. However, it should also be obvious that the lexical-semantic group of words and the word-derived (“nested”) association of words are phenomena of a different order. Firstly, the distribution of words of the same root into different parts of speech usually creates different words with different meanings that do not lie on the same semantic plane. Wed. keep up and success, follow and follow, fry-heat-hot, etc., etc. Lexico-semantic groups of words - words related to any one part of speech. However, the correlations of adverbs with adjectives (good-good, heavy-heavy, etc.), nouns and adjectives like annoying-intrusiveness and a number of other correlations of a similar nature require special consideration.

Secondly, as is known, the original (root) word and its derivatives can denote the most heterogeneous meanings, the development of which can and does lead to a complete severance of connections between them. If one polysemantic word has heterogeneous meanings lying on different planes (cf. “a man is walking down the street” and “things are going well”), then all the more so this applies to a word-derived combination of words. Only in cases where the original word and its derivative are semantically homogeneous does the situation turn out to be different. The city and the suburbs belong to the same lexical-semantic group. Wed. also hand-handle-handle-handle-handle (the meanings of these words are based on one concept) and other similar examples.

Thus, lexical-semantic groups of words are lexical associations with homogeneous, comparable meanings. They should not be confused either with grammatical classes of words, or with root associations of words, or with the complex of meanings of polysemantic words. Lexical-semantic groups differ from the so-called thematic associations in the semantic interdependence of the words included in them. The study of lexical-semantic groups of words and their historical development is important for lexicology in many respects.

Lexico-semantic groupings of vocabulary. The concept of LSG. The concept of a thematic group. The concept of a semantic field. The concept of an associative field. Ideographic and associative dictionaries. The concept of lexical category (LC). Types of lexical categories from the point of view of formal semantic oppositions.

As already mentioned, one of the central questions of linguistics is the question of the systematic nature of language, which manifests itself in a set of elements connected by internal relationships. The lexical composition of the language is no exception. It is not a collection of disparate units, but a collection of interconnected relationships, traditionally presented in two perspectives: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Due to this, it consists of semantic groups with different types of relationships.

The view of vocabulary as a system thus took shape in the so-called. theory semantic field or lexical-semantic groupings. They are also consistent with two approaches to the study of vocabulary: semasiological (from word to concept) and onomasiological (from concept to word), which complement each other and are fundamental in the construction of the semantic field. The result of a description of vocabulary aimed at identifying its systemic connections is its classification, i.e. identification of various lexical-semantic groups of vocabulary.

The very understanding of the lexical-semantic group (LSG) is ambiguous

A lexical-semantic group (in a broad sense) is usually called a group of words “fairly closely related to each other in meaning.” However, this understanding is rather vague, since different semantic groups fit under it: synonyms, and even antonyms, and paronyms, and LSG itself, and thematic fields, etc. - i.e. everything that has semantic proximity. Therefore, it is necessary to define the concepts.

By lexical-semantic group (LSG) in the narrow sense we will understand a group of words united by the commonality of a categorical-generic seme (archiseme) and the commonality of part-verbal reference. For example: pine, oak, spruce, birch... (LSG “trees”), red, yellow, green, blue... (LSG “color”), run, rush, fly, swim... (LSG “move around”), etc.

Let's take a closer look at the last example based on a component analysis of the semantics of the words included in the LSG:

RUN - “quickly” “move” “on the ground” “with your feet”

FLY - 1) “quickly” “move” “through the air” with “wings”

2) “very” “quickly” “move”

SWIM - “move” “through the water” with “arms and legs”

CRAWL - 1) “move” “on the ground” with “the body”

2) “very” “slowly” “move”

RACE - “very” “quickly” “move”

We see that in LSG there is a common generic seme “to move,” but the nature of movement and speed are different. If these words are identical, the words will be synonyms: RUN, FLY-2, RACE. If some features of the named concepts are opposite (for example, speed), the words will be antonyms: CRAWL-2 - FLY-2 (or RACE). Thus, LSG includes more specific semantic groups or series): synonyms and antonyms. All members of the LSG in relation to each other will be cohyponyms (or cohyponyms), because are called species concepts of the same genus (MOVE). The generic word in relation to each member of the LSG will be a hyperonym. And generic pairs (such as RUN - MOVE) are hyponyms. So in LSG there are several more types of relations: identities, oppositions, intersections, inclusions (see types of oppositions in 2.2.2.). And the LSGs themselves can be included in each other, like nesting dolls: “movement” - “movement” - “human movement”, i.e. can be “micro” and “macro”. In LSG, words are combined mainly on the basis of paradigmatics (oppositions).

Wider associations of words are thematic groups (TG): these are groups of words from different parts of speech, united by a common theme (hence the name). Various types of connections are observed in it: both paradigmatic and syntagmatic. For example, TG “sport” (football, goal, score, football, stadium, fan etc.) or “trade” ( trade, haggle, market, shop, buyer, seller, sale, sell and so on.). TG includes different LSGs. For example, LSG “trading establishments” ( shop, shop, kiosk, boutique, supermarket), synonyms ( acquire, buy), antonyms ( expensive - cheap), hyponyms ( grocery store), conversions ( purchase - sale) and so on. in the TG “trade”. Sometimes TG is called a thematic field, but the term “field” is also used in combination with “semantic field” (often as a synonym for thematic).

A semantic field (SF), or lexical-semantic field (LSF), is usually understood as “a group of words of the same language, closely related to each other in meaning” (Yu.N. Karaulov) or “a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units united by a common ( invariant) meaning and reflecting a certain conceptual sphere in the language” (L.A. Novikov). LSP is a broader association than LSG and even than TG, although it is close to the latter. It also includes several LSGs and other semantic associations of paradigmatic and syntagmatic types: for example, the field “color” includes the LSG of adjectives “color” ( green, red, blue), and LSG verbs “to show color” ( turn blue, turn red, turn yellow), and nouns "color" ( red, blue, yellow). Or LSP “time” includes LSG “segments of time” ( hour, minute, second), and LSG “parts of the day” ( morning, evening, noon), and LSG “time of year” ( Spring Summer Autumn) and so on.

However, a clear distinction between these concepts has not yet emerged. For example, the lexical group “kinship” is called both a lexical-semantic group, a thematic group, and a semantic field, because it is very extensive and includes different types of vocabulary and even phrases like cousin. Therefore, everyone uses these terms to the best of their understanding. We will adhere to the specified distinction between LSG and TG, as well as LSP. The latter are distinguished as subject-logical (TG, reflecting the division of the picture of the world itself, its fragments) and semantic, conceptual (SP, reflecting conceptual spheres and relationships).

The semantic field (for example, in the theory of Yu.N. Karaulov) has field name(his name), core(key words: usually synonyms and antonyms, as well as typical combinations) and periphery(words associated with the core less closely semantically or stylistically). Let us recall the example with the word FRIEND from the Dictionary of Associative Norms of the Russian Language. In fact, almost all the words from the informants’ answers form a field called FRIEND, the core of which will include its synonyms ( comrade, buddy, friend), antonyms ( foe), derivatives ( be friends, friendship), typical and stable compatibility ( faithful, close, best, bosom), and on the periphery there will be words Brother And sidekick.

In linguistics there are various types of semantic fields: lexical-semantic fields (LSF, discussed above), associative-semantic fields (ASF, compiled on the basis of an associative experiment), as well as functional-semantic fields (FSF, including lexical and grammatical meanings). For example, the SP “time” as LSP will include the words hour, year, minute; past present Future etc., as a result of an associative experiment, ASP may also include, for example, words forward, money(as the implementation of precedent texts “time is forward” and “time is money”), and the FSP will also include grammatical forms of expressing time: I walked, I walk, I'll go.

The basic unit of a semantic field (its name) is, as already mentioned, a word in one of its meanings (LSV). Each LSV of a word is included in three types of semantic relations: paradigmatic, syntagmatic and associative-derivative. And around each one forms its own microfield. For example, the SP ZEMLYA-1 (“soil”) will include the words the soil, sand, clay(paradigmatics), dig, dig, plow(syntagmatics), earthen, earthy, digger(derivative); EARTH-2 (“land”) - land, water, sea; saw, opened; terrestrial, underground, amphibious; EARTH-3 (“country”) - a country, homeland, fatherland; dear, someone else's, seaside; countryman, stranger. However, being connected to each other as LSV of one word, these SP will also be included in the common SP EARTH. Those. The field will also include epidigmatic relationships between PSWs.

Thus, from the point of view of onomasiology, the entire lexical composition of a language is presented as a system of interacting semantic fields that form a complex and specific linguistic picture of the world for each language (more about LCM will be discussed in a special topic): names of time, space, movement, degree of kinship, colors, plants, animals, humans, etc. The organization of the joint venture is based on generic (hyponymic) relationships.

Units that are homogeneous in meaning are combined into lexical-semantic groups (elementary microfields) and other lexical categories (synonyms, antonyms, etc.).

Lexical categories are divided into two aspects: semasiology and onomasiology. IN semasiological aspect, categories such as polysemy (intra-word category) are considered. IN onomasiological- categories such as synonymy and antonymy (interword categories).

Lexical categories are determined on the basis of one or another opposition, semantic or formal. Depending on the consideration of PS or PV words (or both), LC can be divided into three types: 1) semantic(identified on the basis of PS, identity, similarity of semantics, meaning) - these include synonymy and antonymy, as well as hyponymy and conversion; 2) formal(identified on the basis of only PV, identity of form) - homonymy; 3) formally-semantic(identified on the basis of the similarity of PV and PS) is a paronymy. Using this principle, one can construct a definition of each of the LCs:

Polysemy is the semantic relationship of internally related semes, formally expressed by the identity of the lexeme (PS + PV +): DOM-1/DOM-2.

Synonymy is the relationship of identical (or close) seeds, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): EYES / EYES.

Antonymy is the relationship of opposed but intersecting sememes, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): YES / NO.

Hyponymy is a relationship of generic inclusion, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): HOUSE / BUILDING.

Paronymy is the relationship of similar, but not identical semes, formally expressed by similar, but not identical lexemes (PS + PV +): FACT / FACT OR.

Conversion is a semantically inverse relationship, formally expressed by different lexemes (PS + PV -): BUY / SALE.

Homonymy is a relationship between internally unrelated semes, formally expressed by identical lexemes (PS - PV +): KEY (1) / KEY (2).

We will learn more about each lexical category in the next topic.

Semantic fields and other groupings of vocabulary are described in special ideographic (thematic) dictionaries, see, for example, “Thematic Dictionary of the Russian Language,” ed. V.V. Morkovkin or “Russian Semantic Dictionary”, ed. N.Yu. Shvedova, in which words are distributed into semantic groups.

Questions for self-control:

What is a lexical system?

What types of systemic connections are distinguished in vocabulary?

What is paradigmatics in lexicology?

What are the types of semantic oppositions?

What is syntagmatics in lexicology?

What are the strong and weak positions of a word in context?

What is semantic derivation? What is the question of its relationship to the lexical system?

What is a lexical-semantic group?

What is a thematic group (thematic class)?

What is a lexical-semantic field? What is its difference from the thematic group and from the functional-semantic field?

LITERATURE

Kobozeva I.M. Linguistic semantics. – M., 2000. Section. 2, chapter 4; 7.

Krysin L.P. Modern Russian language. Lexical semantics. Lexicology. Phraseology. Lexicography. – M., 2009. - §32-34, 40-42.

Popova Z.D., Sternin I.A. Lexical system of language. – Voronezh, 1984; 2nd ed., add. - M., 2010.

Ufimtseva A.A. Experience in learning vocabulary as a system. - M., 2010.

Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. – M., 1977. - Ch. 3.