Lexical fields. Literature form of study – correspondence
Semantic field - 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 related to others semantic fields language and, together with them, forms a language system.
The field stands out core, which expresses the integral seme (archiseme) and organizes the others around itself. For example, field - human body parts: head, hand, heart– the core, the rest are less important.
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 (boast - boast), antonymic (speak - remain silent), etc.
The elements of a separate semantic field are connected by regular and systemic relationships, and, therefore, all the words of the field are mutually opposed to each other. Semantic fields may overlap 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.
A single linguistic unit may have several meanings and, therefore, may 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 simplest type of semantic field is paradigmatic field, the units of which are lexemes belonging to one part of speech and united by a common categorical seme in meaning, between the units of such a field there are connections of a paradigmatic type (synonymous, antonymic, generic-specific, etc.) Such fields are often also called semantic classes or lexical-semantic groups. An example of a minimal semantic field of a paradigmatic type is a synonymous group, for example the group verbs of speech. This field is formed by verbs talk, tell, chatter, chatter etc. Elements of the semantic field of verbs of speech are united by the integral semantic feature of “speaking”, but their meaning not identical.
The lexical system is most fully and adequately reflected in the semantic field - a lexical category of the highest order. Semantic field – This hierarchical structure sets 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. The field is characterized by the homogeneous conceptual content of its units, therefore its elements are usually not words that correlate their meanings with different concepts, but lexical-semantic variants.
All vocabulary can be represented as a hierarchy of semantic fields of different ranks: large semantic spheres of vocabulary are divided into classes, classes into subclasses, etc., down to elementary semantic microfields. The elementary semantic microfield is lexical-semantic group(LSG) is 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 field archiseme. The most important structuring relationship of elements in the semantic field is hyponymy – his hierarchical system, based on genus-species relationships. Words corresponding to generic concepts act as hyponyms in relation to the word corresponding to the generic concept - their hypernym, and as co-hyponyms in relation to each other.
The semantic field as such includes words of different parts of speech. Therefore, field units are characterized not only by syntagmatic and paradigmatic, but also by associative-derivative relations. SP units can be included in all types of semantic categorical relations (hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy, conversion, word-formation derivation, polysemy). Of course, not every word by its nature is included in any of the indicated semantic relations. Despite the great diversity in the organization of semantic fields and the specifics of each of them, we can talk about a certain structure of the joint venture, which presupposes the presence of its core, center and periphery (“transfer” - the core, “donate, sell” - the center, “build, clean” - periphery).
The word appears in the SP in all its characteristic connections and various relationships that actually exist in the lexical system of the language.
Lexis is a set of particular systems, or subsystems, called semantic fields, within which words are connected by associative or structural relations, among which, in particular, we can distinguish the relations of mutual opposition of Kobozev, I.M. Linguistic semantics [Text]: textbook / I.M. Kobozeva. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2000.. According to the theory of I. Trier, for each “conceptual field” corresponding certain area concepts are, as it were, superimposed on words, dividing it without remainder and forming a “verbal” field. In this case, each word receives meaning only as part of the corresponding field. A native speaker fully knows the meaning of a word only if he knows the meanings of other words from the same field. The initial theoretical understanding of the concept of field in language was contained in the works of I. Trier, G. Ipsen, where it received the name “lexical-semantic field” Krongauz, M.A. Semantics [Text]: textbook for universities / M.A. Krongauz. - M.: Ros. state humanist University, 2001..
The lexical-semantic field is characterized by the following basic properties:
1) the presence of semantic relationships (correlations) between its constituent words;
2) the systemic nature of these relations;
3) interdependence and mutual definability of lexical units;
4) relative autonomy of the field;
5) continuity of designation of its semantic space;
6) the relationship of semantic fields within the entire lexical system (the entire dictionary) Kobozev, I.M. Linguistic semantics [Text]: textbook / I.M. Kobozeva. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2000..
The study of the lexical-semantic system of a language in modern linguistics often involves the analysis of words arranged in the form of lexical-semantic fields.
The field description of vocabulary, widespread in linguistics, originates in semasiology and is associated, first of all, with the names of J. Trier, G. Ipsen (in whose works the name “semantic field” arose), V. Porzig, E. Cosernu, O Duhacek, L. Weisgerber, H. Haeckeler, etc. Ebert, T.V. Semantics and valency of verbs of the lexical-semantic field lieben: abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences / T.V. Ebert. - Tambov, 2003. Later this approach began to be used to describe lexical groups and paradigms, paradigmatic fields, grammatical fields, syntactic fields, grammatical-lexical fields, etc. Muryasov, R.Z. Lexico-grammatical categories in grammar and word formation / R.Z. Muryasov // Questions of linguistics. - 1999. - No. 4..
A field is understood as “a set of linguistic (mainly lexical) units united by a common content (sometimes also by the obligation of formal indicators) and reflecting the conceptual, subject or functional similarity of the designated phenomena” Linguistics: large encyclopedic Dictionary/ ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. - 2nd ed. - M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2000. P. 380.
The lexical-semantic field and the lexical-semantic group are not homogeneous lexical-semantic systems. Field in contrast
from a group is a system consisting of formations that are heterogeneous in the nature of the connections between their constituent elements (LSG, synonymous series, etc.).
According to A.A. Ufimtseva, “as part of lexical-semantic fields, the lexical meanings of individual words are combined on the basis of at least one common seme; within lexical-semantic groups, the same mechanism of combining the lexical meanings of words belonging to the same part of speech operates, those. characterized by a certain commonality grammatical meanings(“object” - for nouns, “feature” - for adjectives, “action” or “state” - for verbs, etc.)” Ufimtseva, A.A. Word in the lexical-semantic system of language /
A.A. Ufimtseva. - M., 1968.P.58.
A special lexical association is a synonymous series. It should be noted that the group, subgroup and synonymous series are distinguished on different grounds. In order to combine words into a group, it is enough that their meaning contains one common semantic feature. The volume of lexical association depends on which feature or seme is chosen as integral. Practical method establishing synonymous relations is the method of replacing one word with another in the context. Therefore, a synonymous series may include lexemes belonging to different lexical-semantic groups and be located on the periphery in the area of intersection of series, subgroups, lexical-semantic groups Korsakova Yu. S. Possibilities systematic approach when analyzing lexical material // Questions modern science and practice. - No. 4. - 2006. P. 114-115..
Thus, a field is understood as “a set of linguistic units united by a common content (sometimes also by the obligation of formal indicators) and reflecting the conceptual, subject or functional similarity of the designated phenomena.” The lexical-semantic field and the lexical-semantic group are not homogeneous lexical-semantic systems. A field, in contrast to a group, is a system consisting of formations that are heterogeneous in the nature of the connections between their constituent elements (LSG, synonymous series, etc.).
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 polysemantic words 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 certain 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”).
2.1 Specifics of the concept of “field”
The concept of “field” goes back to the definition of language as a system. The systematic nature of the language, which was theoretically substantiated by I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure, was recognized by both domestic and foreign linguists. The concept of the field principle of the systemic organization of linguistic phenomena is considered one of the most significant achievements of linguistics of the 20th century. According to G. S. Shchur, the founders of field theory are German scientists, since the concept of “field” became most widespread in the light of the work of G. Ibsen, where it was defined as a set of words that have general meaning. I. Trier introduced the terms “lexical (semantic) field” and “conceptual field” into use, dividing their meanings.
This point of view is reflected in linguistic dictionaries and encyclopedias. O. S. Akhmanova defines a field as “a set of meaningful units (concepts, words) covering a certain area of human experience.” Subsequently, works appeared in which a variety of syntactic complexes were interpreted as fields. The German scientist W. Porzig introduced the term “syntactic field”, which initially denoted phrases and syntactic complexes, where the possibility of semantic compatibility of components was traced. Another German scientist, L. Weisgerber, considered the syntactic field as a set of structural models of a sentence, which are united by a common semantic task.
The concept of “syntactic field” was also used by domestic linguists. So, for example, N.I. Filicheva uses this term to designate a grouping of syntactic models based on the proximity of what they express syntactic meanings, representing a generalized reflection of objective reality.
V.I. Kodukhov, emphasizing the systemic nature of the language, noted the integrity of the system and the interdependence of its elements: “The systemic nature of its<языка>manifests itself in the fact that different linguistic phenomena interconnected with each other, functioning as a single whole.” In Russian linguistics, V. G. Admoni’s concept of the field structure of grammatical phenomena is of significant interest, where he identifies a center that concentrates all overlapping features, and a periphery where there is an absence of one or more features.
There is another interpretation. Thus, researcher V. S. Yurchenko introduces the concept of “linguistic field” and gives following definition: “The linguistic field is a semantic field that is formed by the invariant structure of a sentence with all its connections: extra-linguistic (person, reality, real time) and intralingual (thought, parts of speech, word, statement).” Thus, the author believes that this phenomenon(“language field”) can be considered from two sides: both as a functional-semantic field (A. V. Bondarko), on the one hand, and as a “house of being” (M. Heidegger), on the other. With this understanding, “field” is both the subject of consideration of linguistics and the subject of consideration of philosophy.
A unique classification of functional-semantic fields was proposed by Prof. P. V. Chesnokov. The scientist identifies three types of FSP: ontological-ontological (the unifying factor here is the objective (ontological) content, and differences in this content act as a factor delimiting microfields); ontological-gnoseological (here the unifying factor is also the objective content, but the factor separating MP is the form of reflection, the form of thought) and epistemological-epistemological (both the unifying and separating factor of fields of this type is the cognitive moment, the form of thought). Since the fields of the second and third types differ in the form of thought, and the analysis of individual word forms and syntactic constructions, included in the studied FSP, is carried out from the point of view of the embodiment of semantic forms of thinking in them, so it is advisable to touch upon the issue of semantic forms of thinking, the doctrine of which was also developed by Professor P. V. Chesnokov Nadolinskaya Yu. S. Functional-semantic field of a direct object in modern Russian language. Abstract of the dissertation for competition scientific degree candidate of philological sciences. Rostov-on-Don - 2009. pp. 7-9.
A complex of systemic features of nicknames (semantic, structural and functional), modern Russian anthroponymic lexicography
Proper names in the lexical system of the Russian language they form a special, unique subsystem with its characteristic system-forming factors, as well as patterns of development and functioning in various historical periods...
Lexico-grammatical field of politeness in modern English
Considering language from the point of view of fields has not only theoretical, but also great practical significance, since this approach to language corresponds to the natural conditions of speech communication, when grammatical, lexical...
Lexico-semantic field "decision" in modern English
Back in the last century, Russian semasiologist M.M. Pokrovsky drew attention to the fact that “words and their meanings do not live a life separate from each other” (tele-conf.ru), but are united in our soul, regardless of our consciousness, into various groups...
Translator's false friends
Modal verbs German language and their translations into Russian
Field. 1. A set of content units covering a certain area of human experience: associative field, conceptual field, conceptual field, modal field. 2. A set of linguistic units...
Features of the representation of the lexical-semantic field "wein" based on the novels of E.M. Remarque
“The lexical-semantic field is a very capacious concept. Here the main problems of lexicology intersect - the problems of synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, the problem of the relationship between words and concepts. Problem solving...
Features of the representation of the lexical-semantic field "wein" based on the novels of E.M. Remarque
The idea of studying vocabulary by semantic (conceptual) fields is associated in linguistics with the name of J. Trier, although the term itself in linguistics was first used by G. Ipsen, who defined a field as a collection of words...
Problems of legal terminological system in English language
A semantic field (in other terminology, a lexical-semantic group) is a complex functional system-structural unit of the lexical-semantic level. The elements of the semantic field are words...
Public speaking is the communicative interaction of a speaker with an audience of listeners...
Semantic field of the word "dwelling" in Russian and English languages
Studying lexical units as parts of a larger system helps to reveal semantic structures. The word, being a reflection of reality, is the subject of the study of semantics. Study of lexical-semantic groups...
The vocabulary of the language and its layers. Lexical field
Vocabulary is a collection of private systems, or subsystems, called semantic fields, within which words are connected by associative or structural relationships, among which, in particular...
When describing language, modern linguistic science is based on the systemic-functional principle, which involves the use of complex units. Currently, the semantic field is considered the most universal of them...
Specifics of color semantics in Russian and English languages (based on the material of a free associative experiment)
Colors play an important role in human perception of the world. From the point of view of linguistics, it is interesting that among different peoples the list of linguistic designations for primary colors and their shades often does not coincide: there...
Phraseosemantic field with the somatism component in English and Russian languages (comparative analysis)
1.1 The field principle of describing language phenomena The field approach to describing language phenomena has become widespread in modern linguistics. Originating in semasiology and associated with the names of I. Trier and V. Porzig...
Reading the poems of Russian poets, we notice how often artists of words describe nature. IN landscape lyrics– depict pictures of nature and terrain, which often serve as an additional means for a more expressive depiction of the mental state of literary characters, helping to reveal the author’s intention.
When analyzing poems, we pay attention to such means of expression as a metaphor, epithet, simile. We can draw a word picture from the poem. And, of course, we pay attention to color.
We pay attention not only to the color of each element of the picture, but also to the general coloring, which conveys the poet’s aesthetic experience and the emotional structure of the work. Color is often important means expressiveness, it makes it possible to present in more detail the picture created by the poet in the poem.
Alexander Blok wrote that “ ...the art of colors and lines allows you to always remember the proximity to real nature..." The poet also wrote that verbal impressions are more alien to children than visual ones.
Children enjoy drawing everything they can. While reading a poem, each child can depict in a picture what the author depicts. The more colors he uses, the brighter the child’s perception will be.
An artist, when painting a picture, uses all kinds of paints. We know that “painting teaches you to look and see (these are different things and rarely coincide). Thanks to this, painting keeps alive and intact the feeling that children are distinguished by.
Affectionate and bright paint preserves the artist’s childlike sensibility; and adult writers “greedily cherish the remnants of feeling in their souls.” Wanting to save their precious time, they replaced the slow drawing with a quick word; but - they became blind, dumbened to visual perceptions.
They say there are more words than colors, but perhaps for an elegant writer, for a poet, only words that match the colors are enough. After all, this is a surprisingly colorful, expressive and harmonious vocabulary.
Everything can be drawn - air, lake, reeds and sky. All concepts are specific and sufficient to express an idea. And for the development of ideas in the future, methods “more subtle than ready-made words” may appear.
A writer or poet can also be an artist. Various pictures also appear in front of him, and difficult work begins in the “laboratory of words.” A “color rainbow” appears before their eyes.
What is important here is “for a writer - understanding of visual impressions, the ability to look? The action of light and color is free. It eases the soul and gives rise to a beautiful thought.”