Types of semantic fields. Semantic field

The lexical system in all mediations of its units is most fully and adequately reflected in the semantic field - a lexical category of a higher order. A semantic field (SF) is a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units united by a common (invariant) meaning

Lexical units are included in a certain SP on the basis that they contain an archiseme that unites them, for example, “time” - for all time designations, “relative / relative” - for all kinship names, “color” - for all color designations, etc. d.

The field is characterized by the homogeneous conceptual content of its units, therefore its “building elements” are usually not words that correlate their meanings with different concepts, but LSVs. Polysemantic words most often appear with their different meanings (LSV) in different joint ventures, for example, sisters - in designations of kinship, sister2 - in the names of medical personnel, and only relatively rarely - in the same field; cf.: day\ and day 2 as a designation of part of the day and all days.

The concept of “field” is absolute in its fundamental structure and at the same time relative in the direct analysis of vocabulary, that is, it is usually limited to a specific research task. Strictly speaking, all vocabulary can be represented in the form of a hierarchy of semantic fields of different ranks, in the form of the structure of a thesaurus (i.e., ideographic, onomasiological dictionary): large semantic spheres of vocabulary are divided into classes, classes into subclasses, etc. down to elementary semantic microfields. An elementary semantic microfield is a lexical-semantic group (LSG) - a relatively closed series of lexical units of one part of speech, united by an archiseme of more specific content and hierarchically lower order than the archiseme of the field. Thus, in a large-scale SP “man (Loto sar1eps),” one can, for example, distinguish LSGs that characterize various aspects of human intellectual activity: LSG| (mind, reason, thinking, thought, concept, judgment, reasoning, inference, analysis, understanding...), LSG 2 [think, think, reason, judge (about something), ponder, delve into, conclude, analyze, understand, comprehend, grasp (with the mind) ...], LSGz [smart, reasonable, wise, understanding, sensible, judicious, thinking (adj.), smart, quick-witted, savvy...], etc.

The most important structuring relationship of elements in the semantic field is hyponymy - its hierarchical system based on genus-species relations (see /, 6). The basis of hyponymy is the relation of incompatibility - the property of semantically homogeneous lexical units that correlate with concepts whose volumes do not intersect. Hyponymy is the inclusion of units in the corresponding class of names. Words corresponding to generic concepts (for example, poodle, mastiff, shepherd, greyhound, spaniel) act as hyponyms in relation to the word corresponding to the generic concept (dog), their hypernym, and as co-hyponyms in relation to each other. Hyper-hyponymic relations structure the joint venture from top to bottom and from bottom to top. The concepts of “hyponym” and “Hyperonym” in the field are relative. Thus, the hypernym dog, when “ascending” to the top of the field, becomes a hyponym in relation to the hierarchically higher word animal, etc. Based on hyponymy, interrelated lexical units are successively combined into LSG, subclasses, classes, class classes, semantic spheres, forming a complex multidimensional structure of interconnected joint ventures.

Of the properties of hyponyms that are essential for revealing the relationship between the elements of the joint venture, we note the following. Firstly, in contrast to synonymy (see 2, 9) as one of the important semantic dimensions of the field, hyponymy is defined in terms of one-sided implication: it is always possible to replace a hyponym with a hypernym as subsuming the species under the genus (He bought roses - “- He bought flowers); the opposite is not always possible, since, for example, flowers can be not only roses. Secondly, the meaning of a hyponym is semantically more complex and richer than that of a hypernym, and the class of objects it represents is narrower (see 1, 6). The semantic relation of co-hyponyms is the relation of elements of the same class; hyponyms include the semantic content of the hypernym and are contrasted with each other by corresponding additional differential semes; Wed: physics, chemistry, mathematics, linguistics and their hypernym science.

Semantic field structure

The semantic field as such (unlike LSG) includes words (LSV) of different parts of speech. Therefore, field units are characterized not only by 1) syntagmatic and 2) paradigmatic, but also 3) associative-derivative relations. They form three dimensions of the joint venture: 1) father, love father, father of the family...-, 2) father - mother, son, daughter, grandfather...; 3) father - paternal, fatherly, fatherly, fatherly... (word-formation derivation); father\ - “a man in relation to his children”, father - “ancestor, founder of something”, fatherz - “servant of a cult” (semantic derivation indicating the connection of the semantic field of kinship designations with adjacent fields).

SP units can be included in all types of semantic categorical relations. Thus, the adjective high as a member of one of the LSG SP “man” is included in the relations of hyponymy (tall and stature), synonymy (tall - tall, long, lanky), antonymy (tall - short), conversion (Ivan is taller than Peter ■*-> Peter is lower than Ivan), word-formation derivation (high - highly gifted, height), polysemy [high\ - high2 (high harvest), high^ (high reward), high 4 (high style), high (high quality), high (high tenor )]. Associative-derivative relations of polysemy characterize the connection of a given LSG with other LSGs of the “person” field and adjacent fields. Of course, not every word in the field is by its nature included in any of the indicated semantic relations: the noun table, for example, does not have an antonym.

Despite the great diversity in the organization of semantic fields and the specifics of each of them, we can talk about some fundamental structure of the SP, which presupposes the presence of its core, center and periphery. Let us take the “transfer” field as an example, limiting ourselves for simplicity of presentation to the verbs that form the basis of this field; cf.: transmit - transfer, hand over - delivery, etc. The general (invariant) meaning of the field in its “pure” form contains the semantically simplest word convey - “cause someone to start having something”: She conveys him a book. The verb transmit, together with words close to it in semantics (synonyms like hand in - “transfer directly from hand to hand”, antonyms and conversions like take (back), accept and some word-forming derivatives) forms a class of units of non-specialized transmission - the core of the semantic field.

This nuclear part of the SP is, as it were, enveloped in classes of specialized transmission, where the general meaning of the field becomes more complex as it moves away from the core. These classes represent the center of the semantic field: “donation” (give, present, present...), “purchase and sale” (buy, sell, sell...), “payment and loan” (pay, lend, lend) to give...), "will" [bequeath, leave (after oneself); Wed receive as an inheritance], “forwarding and transportation” (send, forward, deliver...), “transmit information via communication channels” [transmit (by radio), broadcast, telegraph...], etc.

Due to the law of asymmetry of sign and meaning (see 2, 7), the semantics of transmission can be expressed by units of other, adjacent fields lying on the periphery of a given field, which indicates a close relationship between semantic fields in the lexical system of the language. Verbs with the meaning of making, preparing, creating something in special contexts that implement their secondary semantic functions can denote transfer: Parents built a dacha for their children (x handed over, donated); The mother peeled an orange for her little son, and he ate it with appetite (“she peeled and gave”).

For SP units, in many cases it is possible to indicate their characteristic syntagmatic and paradigmatic properties, correlated with each other. The verbs of transmission discussed above are characterized, for example, by the general basic formula of distribution: Г^У^^, where N denotes a name in a certain case (N1 - im., N3 - dat., N4 - wine); and V is a verb of transfer, for example: The dean presents a diploma to the hero of the day (compare the modification of this formula when the semantics of the verb is complicated, for example, to sell - “to give for a fee”: Г^УМ^з for N4 - He gives the book to me for a ruble). Units of the semantic fields “person” (class: “parts of the body”) and “tools” are characterized by the construction N^N5 (with various extensions): I heard (this with my own) ears; He grabbed his hands (on the crossbar); They shovel (snow) with shovels, etc.

The essentially coinciding combinability of field units reflects their paradigmatic proximity and semantic commonality: donate - “to give a gift”, sell - “to give for a fee”, broadcast - “to broadcast on radio or television”.

The word (LSV) appears in the SP in all its characteristic connections and various relationships that actually exist in the lexical system of the language.

The lexical categories discussed above turn out to be interconnected and juxtaposed in the field as its most important components. They are synthesized in it.

Apresyan Yu. D. Lexical semantics: Synonymous means of language. M., 1974. S. 175-315.

Akhmanova O. S. Essays on general and Russian lexicology. M., 1957. S. 104-165.

Berezhan S. G. Semantic equivalence of lexical units. Chisinau, 1973.

Vinogradov V.V. Selected works: Studies on Russian grammar. M„ 1975. P. 295-312.

Karaulov Yu. N. General and Russian ideography. M.. 1976. P. 106-

Karaulov Yu. N. Linguistic construction and thesaurus of the literary language. M., 1981. S. 148-218.

Lyons J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. M., 1978. S. 467-507.

Modern Russian language: Theoretical course: Lexicology. M., 1987. P. 40-80.

Shmelev D. N. Modern Russian language: Lexicon. M., 1977. S. 65-130, 183-232.

CLASS FORMATION

INTRODUCTION

Word formation as a special branch of linguistics began to take shape in the 40-50s of our century, primarily thanks to the works of V.V. Vinogradov, G.O. Vinokur, A.I. Smirnitsky. Already in those years, some important problems of the general theory of synchronous word formation began to be developed: the place of word formation in a number of linguistic disciplines, problems of word divisibility, principles for establishing relations of synchronous derivation, the originality of semantics and the structure of derived words of different parts of speech.

In the 60-80s, the theory of synchronous word formation was further developed. The science of word formation, having separated from morphology and lexicology, has become an independent linguistic discipline, having its own object of study, its own method of analysis and system of concepts.

WORD FORMATION, SYNCHRONOUS AND HISTORICAL

This section of the textbook is devoted to modern synchronic word formation. (In modern linguistics, the terms “derivation” and “derivative” are used as synonyms for the terms “word formation” and “word formation”.) Only some parts of it examine individual issues of historical word formation. This is necessary in order to clearly separate the synchronous study of word formation from the diachronic one, which is important in the practice of research and teaching of the Russian language.

With synchronic and diachronic (historical) approaches to word formation, many concepts called by the same term receive different content. Such, for example, is the concept of “derivativeness” and the related concepts of “derivative basis” and “producing basis”.

With a diachronic approach, in order to establish the derivativeness of a word and, therefore, determine which of the compared related words served as the basis for the formation of another, i.e. which has a productive basis and which has a derivative, it is necessary to study the specific history of these words and find out which of them is earlier and which is later, which of the words is historically formed from the other.

In a synchronous analysis, in order to establish the derivative and generating bases, it is necessary to answer the question: which of the two same-root bases is simpler in form and meaning (generative), and which is more complex (derivative)? To do this, it is necessary to determine what the formal and the semantic relationship of these fundamentals in the period of life of the language being studied.

So, the terms “derivative” and “producing” stems are used in both synchronous and diachronic word formation. However, if in diachronic word formation they are equal in meaning to participles from the verb to produce, i.e. derivative is “produced; the one that is produced”, producing is “the one that produced”, then in synchronic word formation these terms have not a procedural, but functional meaning (being in certain relationships with each other). This type of relationship is most common: the generating one is simpler in form and meaning than the same-root derivative. The meaning of the productive stem motivates the meaning of the derived stem, and the form of the productive stem is the basis for constructing the form of the derived stem. A word containing a generating base is called generating (base). A word containing a derived stem is called a derivative. A word containing a non-derivative stem is called non-derivative.

The distinction between synchronic and diachronic approaches is of great importance in the study of word formation, since it is in this section of linguistics that the mixing of diachrony and synchrony occurs especially often. This is explained by the fact that a word is a unit of language that can change its meaning without changing its form. Thanks to this, connections between words that were once (in past eras!) related are broken, but the preserved formal proximity often prevents us from seeing this gap and pushes us to unite words that have diverged and become alien.

Even at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The requirement to distinguish synchronic from diachronic word formation was expressed by the brilliant Russian linguists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. F. Fortunatov. Being engaged in the history of language, they paid great attention to the theory of synchronic linguistics and - including - the theory of synchronous word formation. The facts of one era cannot be explained or measured by the standards of another. This general requirement is recognized by all scientists, not only linguists. It is also recognized by linguists, but it makes its way into word formation more difficult than into other branches of linguistics. Speaking in 1903 at a congress of Russian language teachers with a report “On teaching Russian grammar in secondary schools,” F. F. Fortunatov said: “... the category of major errors in school textbooks of Russian grammar is represented by a confusion of facts that exist at a given time in the language, with those that existed in it before...” When studying word formation, pairs of words like tree and village, paw and bast shoe should not be considered related, because there are no living semantic connections between these words. After all, it is obvious that a village is not “a populated area in which many trees grow,” and bast shoes are not “shoes for paws.” Such interpretations would be clearly artificial and would lead to the arbitrary imposition of semantic connections that are not characteristic of the language.

How to discover existing (and not imaginary) connections between words in a language? To answer this question, let’s take a closer look at what distinguishes a derivative word as a special unit of language.

A term used in linguistics most often to designate a set of linguistic units united by some common (integral) semantic feature; in other words, having some common non-trivial component of meaning.

Initially, the role of such lexical units was considered to be units of the lexical level - words; Later, in linguistic works, descriptions of semantic fields appeared, which also included phrases and sentences.

One of the classic examples of a semantic field is a field of color terms, consisting of several color series (red - pink - pinkish - crimson; blue - cyan - bluish - turquoise, etc.): the common semantic component here is “color”. The semantic field has the following basic properties:

1. The semantic field is intuitively understandable to a native speaker and has a psychological reality for him.
2. The semantic field is autonomous and can be identified as an independent subsystem of the language.
3. Units of the semantic field are connected by one or another systemic semantic relationships.
4. Each semantic field is connected with other semantic fields of the language and, together with them, forms a language system.

The theory of semantic fields is based on the idea of the existence of certain semantic groups in a language and the possibility of linguistic units entering one or more such groups. In particular, the vocabulary of a language (lexicon) can be represented as a set of separate groups of words united by various relations: synonymous (boast - boast), antonymic (speak - remain silent), etc.

The possibility of such a representation of vocabulary in the form of a combination of many particular systems of words was discussed already in linguistic works of the 19th century, for example in the works of M.M. Pokrovsky (1868/69-1942). The first attempts to isolate semantic fields were made when creating ideographic dictionaries, or thesuruses - for example, by P. Roger (see DICTIONARY). The term “semantic field” itself began to be actively used after the publication of the works of J. Trier and G. Ipsen. This representation of the lexical system is primarily a linguistic hypothesis, and not an axiom, and therefore is often used as a method of conducting language research, and not as its goal.

The elements of a separate semantic field are connected by regular and systemic relationships, and, consequently, all the words of the field are mutually opposed to each other. Semantic fields can intersect or completely enter into one another. The meaning of each word is most fully determined only if the meanings of other words from the same field are known. Let's compare two color series: red - pink and red - pink - pinkish. If we focus only on the first color series, then several different color shades can be designated by the same lexeme pink. The second color series gives us a more detailed division of color shades, i.e. the same color shades will be correlated with two lexemes - pink and pinkish.

A separate linguistic unit can have several meanings and, therefore, can be classified into different semantic fields. For example, the adjective red can be included in the semantic field of color terms and at the same time in the field, the units of which are united by the generalized meaning “revolutionary”.

The semantic feature underlying the semantic field can also be considered as a certain conceptual category, one way or another correlated with the reality surrounding a person and with his experience. The absence of a sharp opposition between semantic and conceptual concepts is stated in the works of J. Trier, A.V. Bondarko, I.I. Meshchaninova, L.M. Vasilyeva, I.M. Kobozeva. This consideration of an integral semantic feature does not contradict the fact that the semantic field is perceived by native speakers as some independent association correlated with one or another area of human experience, i.e. psychologically real.

The simplest type of semantic field is a field of paradigmatic type, the units of which are lexemes belonging to the same part of speech and united by a common categorical seme (see SEMA) in meaning. Such fields are often also called semantic classes or lexical-semantic groups.

As noted by I.M. Kobozeva, L.M. Vasilyev and other authors, connections between units of a separate semantic field can differ in “breadth” and specificity. The most common types of connections are connections of the paradigmatic type (synonymous, antonymic, genus-species, etc.).

For example, a group of words: tree, branch, trunk, leaf, etc. can form both an independent semantic field, united by the “part - whole” relationship, and be part of the semantic field of plants. In this case, the lexeme tree will serve as a hyperonym (generic concept) for lexemes such as, for example, birch, oak, palm, etc.

The field of verbs of speech can be represented as a combination of synonymous rows (talk - converse - communicate -...; scold - scold - criticize...; tease - ridicule - make fun of -...), etc.

An example of a minimal semantic field of a paradigmatic type can be a synonymous group, for example, a certain group of the same verbs of speech. This field is formed by the verbs speak, tell, chat, chatter, etc. The elements of the semantic field of verbs of speech are united by the integral semantic feature of speaking, but their meaning is not identical. The units of this semantic field differ in differential features, for example, mutual communication "(talk), one-way communication (report, report). In addition, they differ in stylistic, usual, derivational and connotative components of meaning. For example, the verb scold, in addition to the seme of speaking, also has additional connotative meaning (see CONNOTATION) - negative expressiveness.

A general semantic feature that unites elements of a specific semantic field can act as a differential feature in other semantic fields of the same language. For example, the semantic field of “verbs of communication” will include a field of verbs of speech along with such lexemes as telegraph, write, etc. The integral semantic feature for this field will be the sign of information transmission, and the channel of information transmission - oral, written, etc. - will be as a differential feature.

To identify and describe semantic fields, methods of component analysis and associative experiment are often used. Groups of words obtained as a result of an associative experiment are called associative fields.

The term “semantic field” itself is now increasingly being replaced by narrower linguistic terms: lexical field, synonymous series, lexical-semantic field, etc. Each of these terms more clearly defines the type of linguistic units included in the field and/or the type of connection between them. Nevertheless, in many works both the expression semantic field and more specialized designations are used as terminological synonyms.

SEMANTIC FIELD, a term used in linguistics most often to designate a set of linguistic units united by some common (integral) semantic feature; in other words, having some common non-trivial component of meaning. Initially, the role of such lexical units was considered to be units of the lexical level - words; Later, in linguistic works, descriptions of semantic fields appeared, which also included phrases and sentences.

One of the classic examples of a semantic field is a field of color terms, consisting of several color series ( red – pink – pinkish – crimson; blue – blue – bluish – turquoise etc.): the common semantic component here is “color”.

The semantic field has the following basic properties:

1. The semantic field is intuitively understandable to a native speaker and has a psychological reality for him.

2. The semantic field is autonomous and can be identified as an independent subsystem of the language.

3. Units of the semantic field are connected by one or another systemic semantic relationships.

4. Each semantic field is connected with other semantic fields of the language and, together with them, forms a language system.

The theory of semantic fields is based on the idea of the existence of certain semantic groups in a language and the possibility of linguistic units entering one or more such groups. In particular, the vocabulary of a language (lexis) can be represented as a set of separate groups of words united by various relations: synonymous ( brag – boast), antonymous ( speak – keep silent) and so on.

The possibility of such a representation of vocabulary in the form of a combination of many particular systems of words was discussed already in linguistic works of the 19th century, for example in the works of M.M. Pokrovsky (1868/69–1942). The first attempts to identify semantic fields were made when creating ideographic dictionaries, or thesuruses - for example, by P. Roger ( cm. DICTIONARY). The term “semantic field” itself began to be actively used after the publication of the works of J. Trier and G. Ipsen. This representation of the lexical system is primarily a linguistic hypothesis, and not an axiom, and therefore is often used as a method of conducting language research, and not as its goal.

The elements of a separate semantic field are connected by regular and systemic relationships, and, consequently, all the words of the field are mutually opposed to each other. Semantic fields can intersect or completely enter into one another. The meaning of each word is most fully determined only if the meanings of other words from the same field are known. Let's compare two color series red – pink And red - pink – pinkish. If you focus only on the first color row, then several different color shades can be designated by the same lexeme pink. The second color series gives us a more detailed division of color shades, i.e. the same color shades will be correlated with two lexemes - pink And pinkish.

A separate linguistic unit can have several meanings and, therefore, can be classified into different semantic fields. For example, adjective red can be included in the semantic field of color terms and at the same time in the field, the units of which are united by the generalized meaning “revolutionary”.

The semantic feature underlying the semantic field can also be considered as a certain conceptual category, one way or another correlated with the reality surrounding a person and with his experience. The absence of a sharp opposition between semantic and conceptual concepts is stated in the works of J. Trier, A. V. Bondarko, I. I. Meshchaninov, L. M. Vasiliev, I. M. Kobozeva. This consideration of an integral semantic feature does not contradict the fact that the semantic field is perceived by native speakers as some independent association correlated with one or another area of human experience, i.e. psychologically real.

The simplest type of semantic field is a field of paradigmatic type, the units of which are lexemes belonging to the same part of speech and united by a common categorical seme ( cm. SEMA) in meaning. Such fields are often also called semantic classes or lexical-semantic groups.

For example, a group of words tree, branch, trunk, sheet etc. can form both an independent semantic field, united by the “part - whole” relationship, and be part of the semantic field of plants. In this case, the lexeme tree will serve as a hyperonym (generic concept) for lexemes such as, for example, birch, oak, palm etc.

The semantic field of verbs of speech can be represented as a combination of synonymous series ( talk – talk – communicate – ...; scold – scold – criticize...; tease – to make fun of – make fun of- ...) etc.

An example of a minimal semantic field of a paradigmatic type can be a synonymous group, for example, a certain group of the same verbs of speech. This field is formed by verbs speak, tell, chat, chatter etc. Elements of the semantic field of verbs of speech are united by the integral semantic feature of “speaking”, but their meaning is not identical. The units of this semantic field are distinguished by differential features, for example, “mutual communication” ( talk), "one-way communication" ( report, report). In addition, they differ in stylistic, usual, derivational and connotative components of meaning. For example, verb scold, in addition to the seme of “speaking”, also has an additional connotative meaning ( cm. CONNOTATION) – negative expressiveness.

A general semantic feature that unites elements of a specific semantic field can act as a differential feature in other semantic fields of the same language. For example, the semantic field of “verbs of communication” will include a field of verbs of speech along with lexemes such as telegraph, write etc. The integral semantic feature for this field will be the sign of “transmission of information”, and the “channel of information transmission” – oral, written, etc. – will act as a differential feature.

The term “semantic field” itself is now increasingly being replaced by narrower linguistic terms: lexical field, synonymous series, lexical-semantic field, etc. Each of these terms more clearly defines the type of linguistic units included in the field and/or the type of connection between them. Nevertheless, in many works both the expression “semantic field” and more specialized designations are used as terminological synonyms.

Attention to macro-paradigms such as semantic fields is associated with an emphasis on “active” lexicology, i.e. speaker's lexicology. In addition, they help to understand and convey the idea of continuity of semantic space in vocabulary, when, with the help of multi-step semantic analysis, it becomes possible to connect words of different semantic fields, seemingly incompatible with each other. Groupings of words into semantic fields, despite their apparent objectivity, still convey a human (anthropocentric) view of the world. Semantic field is a combination of words from different parts of speech. But within semantic fields, groupings of words by parts of speech appear as unique global paradigms. These groupings form the basis for the creation of the “Explanatory Ideographic Dictionary of Russian Verbs.” For example, it contains verbs of action and activity into a separate group. Semantic field is a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units united by a common invariant meaning and reflecting the general conceptual sphere in the language. From the point of view of ideographic description, we can talk about the path from meaning to concept, to means of expression. Thus, vocabulary can be represented as a system of interacting semantic fields that form a picture of the world specific to each language. These fields are established according to the spheres of human existence, according to the spheres of consciousness (for example: material existence, space and time, movement, etc.). Trier identifies a field of a paradigmatic type, Corzig - a field of a syntagmatic type. The number of units in a given field can be relatively limited or VERY large. Researchers compare the structure of a nuclear field with a field in physics: it has a nuclear part, a substance and a wave part. SP is homogeneous, so heterogeneous semantic units are distributed across different semantic fields. FOR EXAMPLE: get a haircut – 1. cut (cut) hair; 2. become a monk. Different meanings of a polysemantic word fall into different semantic fields. The basis of the conceptual field, as an ordered set of names, is primarily hyper-hyponymic or generic-specific relations. Semantically homogeneous units of the thematic field are combined into lexical-semantic groups (LSG), or elementary microfields, relatively closed rows of words of one part of speech, etc. Subclasses, classes, classes of classes, semantic macrospheres form a hierarchical system of interconnected conceptual fields. The structure of the joint venture includes: 1. core, i.e. words containing the general meaning in its “pure form (color - d/color field). 2 center (perinuclear zone) - a number of layers enveloping the core, specialized words with semantically more complex relationships (white, blue, etc.) 3. The periphery of the joint venture includes secondary names that are included with their primary meanings in adjacent joint ventures. They implement the semantics of a given field in specific contextual conditions. EXAMPLE: chocolate (color). The SP synthesizes various types of relationships: - synonymous (give - hand over); - antonymic (give – take); - polysemy relations (transmit: message via radio/book); - conversion ratios, i.e. the situation is assessed from the point of view of its participants (hand over - receive); - hyponyms

(49) Hyponyms in relation to the SP are established primarily through the relationship to the nearest hypernym and through the relationship to the name of the SP. SPs are multidimensional. SP units include three types of relationships: paradigmatic (arm-foot-head); syntagmatic (touch-grab-wave); Shmelev also points to associative-derivative relations, i.e. relations within the word-formation nest (head of parliament - head of the book; forest - forest - forester). It is necessary to distinguish between system-language and text fields. They do not coincide, although the basis of any textual field is formed by certain elements of the system-linguistic field. ( 49 ) Hyper-hyponymous relationships are typical for SP. Hyponymy- this is a type of paradigmatic relationship in vocabulary that underlies its hierarchical organization. These are relationships of subordination, i.e. inclusive relationships. Hyponymy is a relative concept, because a word can alternately be a hyponym and a hypernym depending on other words. This makes it possible to consistently identify classes and subclasses of lexical units. FOR EXAMPLE: plant -> flower -> rose. Hyponymy is either the relationship between words of the same part of speech, or different ones (color - red, yellow). However, for example, in the Russian language there is no hyperonym for the words “square”, “round”, etc., which indicates the existence of gaps and uncertainty. Within the framework of a joint venture, relations of incompatibility may exist, i.e. there are no direct connections between words. The category of cohyponyms exists within the framework of hyponymy. These are words that are in a relationship of incompatibility with each other, and they cannot refer to the same object of extra-linguistic action (rose and tulip, table and chair). Hyponyms are words that name objects, properties, characteristics, as elements of a set and are in a hyponymic relationship with a word - the name of this class (hyperonym). A hypernym is a word with a broad meaning, expressing a general generic concept, while a hyponym is a word with a narrower meaning. A hyponym has a narrower concept scope, but is richer in the number of semantic features. The hypernym, together with its constituent hyponyms, forms the so-called privative opposition, in which one of the members is unmarked, and the other is marked by some semantic attribute. Textual relations of hyper-hyponymic relations lie in the possibility of their interchange in the text and thereby creating the semantic thematic integrity of the test fragment.

(7) SP is the most global lexical paradigm. It is SPs that are presented in ideographic dictionaries. Within the framework of the joint venture, the most unique types of relationships are distinguished. The types of paradigms in the joint venture are described by Fillur: Classical paradigms (man - woman). Contrastive sets, the elements of which cannot be thought of outside the opposition itself (high - low). Taxonomy is a set of words connected by relations of dominance (tree - oak, maple). Partonomy is lexical associations based on the “part-whole” relationship (a person and his body parts: head, hand). Cycle: a) natural (morning, afternoon, evening, night); b) artificial (days of the week). Network is a set united on the basis of several relationships (kinship terms). Frame is a set of words, each of which denotes a specific part of some conceptual or actional whole; the frame includes other types of relationships. The most interesting from the point of view of reflection from. fields is an associative dictionary, because his dictionary entries reflect the following relations, derived from the relations between the stimulus word and the reaction: Paradigmatic – generic, synonymous, hyponymic relations, “part-whole” relations (for example: black – white, red; forest – tree, branch , leaves; forest - forest, grove). Syntagmatic - all types of possible phrases (for example: forest - dense, green, Russian, cut down). Derivational (for example: forest - forestry, logging). Cultural (for example: forest - Russian forest, Shishkin, “There is a green oak at the Lukomorye”).

Introduction

The beginning of the 21st century in linguistics is characterized by the fact that linguists began to pay more and more attention to the study of semantic fields in languages. It is noted that this approach, applied to the study of linguistic phenomena, is quite fruitful. Although different researchers interpret the concept of “semantic field” from different aspects, this does not prevent us from analyzing many language phenomena based on the principles of semantic field theory. It is the increasing interest in such a phenomenon as the semantic field that explains the relevance of this course work.

The choice of the research topic is due to the fact that some foreign researchers, for example, J. Sperber, argue that the semantic field of smell does not exist. In my opinion, a huge number of lexical units that comprehensively characterize flavor confirms the presence of the analyzed semantic field.

The choice of work for analysis is due to the fact that P. Suskind’s novel “Perfume”, due to its plot-forming features, is very rich in lexical units describing various smells. And it is the study of these units that will allow us to fairly fully characterize the semantic field of smell.

The purpose of this work is to characterize the semantic field of smell in the German language. This goal identified specific tasks, namely:

study linguistic literature affecting field theories;

determine the structure of the semantic field, the connection of elements in it;

identify lexical units used to denote smell (based on P. Suskind’s novel “Perfume”);

describe the semantic field of smell in the German language based on the identified components.

The object of research is the semantic field of smell. The subject of the study is represented by lexical units that make up the semantic field of smell in the German language.

The study was conducted using a descriptive method, a continuous sampling method, and a component analysis method.

The theoretical basis for the study was the works of R. V. Alimpieva (1), L. M. Vasiliev (4,5), A. A. Reformatsky (14), D. N. Shmelev (21), N. F. Alefirenko (2), M. M. Pokrovsky (12) and other scientists

The structure of the course work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

Semantic field theory

The concept of “semantic field”, history of study

The works of many linguists, such as J. Trier, P.N. Denisov, I.V. Sentenber, D.N. Shmelev (21), touch upon such a concept as a semantic field. This term in linguistics denotes a set of linguistic units united due to the presence of some common semantic feature, that is, having some common (integral) component of meaning. Initially, words were considered as such units; later, linguists began to explore semantic fields, including both sentences and phrases. A feature that unites elements of one semantic field may be differential (discriminating) in another semantic field.

The semantic feature, on the basis of which the semantic field is built, can also be considered as a certain conceptual category, one way or another affecting the reality surrounding a person and his experience (as a concept, the central word of the field).

The theory of semantic fields is based on the idea that there are semantic groups in a language, and linguistic units can be included in one or several groups at once. Consequently, it is possible to represent the entire vocabulary of a language as a set of groups of words that are combined through various relationships: synonymous, antonymic, etc.

Linguists paid close attention to the systematic study of language, in particular vocabulary, at the beginning of the 20th century. Although the method itself appeared much earlier. Thus, in 1856, the German philologist K. Heise conducted a structural and semantic analysis of the Schall lexical field. And in 1910, R. Meyer published the first typology of semantic fields, calling it a “system of meanings.” R. Meyer spoke about three types of semantic fields: natural, artificial and semi-artificial. In his opinion, the task of semasiology is to establish the belonging of each word to a specific system and to identify the system-forming, differentiating factor of this system

Russian linguists also did not remain aloof from this topic. It should be said about the semasiological research of M.M. Pokrovsky, who already in the 19th century, considering classical and modern European languages, established the pattern of diachronic-systemic connections of units in various language subsystems. This became the fundamental rationale for the field approach to language learning.

In the 20th century, especially much attention was paid to the systematic study of vocabulary in Germany. Field studies of lexical units were carried out by R. Carnap and L. Wittgenstein. Also, one cannot ignore the research carried out by J. Trier, W. Porzig, L. Weisgerber.

W. Porzig in his works considered the concept of “elementary semantic field”. By this term, the scientist understood the syntagmatic field, that is, syntactic complexes and phrases, the semantic components of which had a common feature. Such connections are found, for example, in combinations of nouns denoting an object, subject or instrument of action, and verbs naming an action. As typical examples, V. Porzig gave the following combinations: eye - see, dog - bark, leg - walk, etc. Moreover, in each such semantic-syntactic field, the lexical valence of combined words and the model of syntactic relations are noticeable. The fact that such a field exists suggests that the originality of the semantic structure of a language is reflected not only by the semantic connections of words characteristic of this language, but also by associative-syntactic connections.

Other scientists almost unanimously recognized the presence of syntagmatic fields of V. Porzig, which cannot be said about the studies of J. Trier. He considered paradigmatic fields based on the fact that a word has meaning only because other words adjacent to it have meaning. In his opinion, a word cannot have its own meaning outside the field. J. Trier writes about two types of fields: “conceptual fields” (Begriffsfelder) and “lexical fields” (Wortfelder), believing that the units of the lexical field, that is, words, completely cover the units of the conceptual field, that is, concepts. From conceptual and lexical fields, according to his theory, “language fields” (sprachliche Felder) are formed, which are closed, two-way autonomous units of language.

Trier's theory was criticized by many scientists because of the following points: the fields he identifies are logical, not linguistic, in nature; he understands the relationship between thinking, language and real reality idealistically; the field is treated as a closed group of words; polysemy is ignored; parallelism between conceptual and verbal fields is allowed; the meaning of words as independent units is rejected.

Nevertheless, this theory was continued in their works by other scientists, such as L. Weisgerber, R. Hallig and W. Wartburg. They mainly described “folk”, “naive” concepts, that is, the meanings of words used in everyday language.

L. Weisgerber adheres to the opinion of J. Trier that a word is a minimal dependent unit that exists due to the fact that there is a whole in the form of a lexical field. He believes that in order to identify the meaning of a particular word, one should study the entire field and determine the place that this word occupies in it. According to the scientist, the meanings of words interfere with the study of the conceptual content of language, which, of course, should be a priority. L. Weisgerber strongly opposes the idea of the unity of human thinking, citing the fact that when translating from one language to another, the meaning is inevitably distorted. The change in meaning occurs because the logic of each language is formed on the basis of the native language.

J. Trier identifies the semantic field in an onomasiological way, and L. Weisgerber - in a semasiological way. For both, as a result, a linguistic field is formed, which is an intermediate link between the world and the consciousness of people of a particular linguistic community.

J. Trier's follower K. Reuning analyzed modern linguistic material. He recognized that there were overlapping groups. The Roening field consists of subfields, identified on the basis of such characteristics as depth of feeling, intensity, nature of manifestation, temporal reference, presence or absence of direction. The scientist calls these features semantic features of the words being analyzed, that is, his research is based on a structural-semantic basis. He represents the field units as circles of varying sizes, overlapping each other and forming intersections. In this case, these circles may extend slightly beyond the general large circle of the field.

Sh. Bally identifies lexical areas using a psycholinguistic approach. He characterizes the language system as an extensive network of mnemonic associations that are similar among all people who speak this language. We are talking about the so-called associative field. The introduction of this concept led to the expansion of the typology of linguistic fields, the development of the original idea of \u200b\u200bthe field only from a paradigmatic or syntagmatic aspect. If we proceed from the descriptions of the associative field, then such a semantic field has the following general characteristics: vastness, openness, fragility of boundaries, the influence of the subjective factor in defining the field and the absence of a single criterion for identifying the field, since such criteria can be represented as general linguistic or individual mental associations , and extralinguistic context. The theory of associative field was also considered by E. Coseriu and Yu.N. Karaulov.

Many linguists are of the opinion that there is no need to separate the “Portzig field”, the “Trier field” and the associative field. In a systemic-functional description of a language, these approaches must be combined. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic “fields” are different dimensions of a single semantic field. In addition, it should be supplemented with epidigmatics, in other words, the relation of word production, since the semantic field consists of units of not one, but different parts of speech.

Thus, the semantic field, which is a set of linguistic units united by some common semantic feature, was studied using a syntagmatic and paradigmatic approach. Some scientists (for example, W. Porzig) studied syntagmatic relations and fields, others (L. Weisgerber, J. Trier) - paradigmatic ones. In addition, when working with semantic fields, one should take into account epidigmatics, as well as associative connections of words. Next, we will dwell in more detail on the structure of the semantic field.