Theoretical foundations of work. The vocabulary of the language and its layers. Lexical field Semantic field lexicology

Reading the poems of Russian poets, we notice how often the word artists describe nature. IN landscape lyrics- depict pictures of nature and terrain, which often serve as an additional means for a more expressive image of the state of mind of literary heroes, contributes to the disclosure of the author's intention.

When analyzing poems, we pay attention to such means of expression as a metaphor, epithet, comparison. We can draw a verbal picture from a 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 overall color that conveys the aesthetic experience of the poet, the emotional structure of the work. Color is often an important means of expression, 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 closeness to real nature ...". The poet also wrote that verbal impressions are more alien to children than visual ones.

Children like to draw everything they can. Reading a poem, each child can depict in the picture what the author depicts. The more colors he uses, the brighter the perception of the child will be.

The artist, drawing a picture, uses all kinds of paints. We know that “painting teaches to look and see (these things are different and rarely coincide). Thanks to this, painting keeps alive and intact the feeling that distinguishes children.

Affectionate and bright paint preserves the artist's childlike susceptibility; and adult writers "greedily cherish the remnant of feelings in their souls." Wishing to save their precious time, they replaced the slow drawing with a quick word; but - blinded, dulled to visual perceptions.

They say that there are more words than colors, but perhaps enough for an elegant writer, for a poet - only such words that correspond to colors. After all, this is a dictionary surprisingly colorful, expressive and harmonious.

Everything can be drawn - air, lake, reeds and sky. All concepts are concrete, and they are sufficient to express an idea. And for the development of ideas in the future, there may be ways "more subtle than ready-made words."

A writer or poet can also be an artist. Various pictures also appear before him, and difficult work begins in the “laboratory of words”. Before their eyes appears "color rainbow".

Here it is important “for the writer - understanding of visual impressions, the ability to look? The action of light and color is free. It lightens the soul, gives rise to a beautiful thought.

SEMANTIC FIELD, a term used in linguistics most often to refer to a set of linguistic units united by some common (integral) semantic feature; in other words, having some common non-trivial value component. Initially, as such lexical items considered units of the lexical level - words; later, descriptions of semantic fields appeared in linguistic works, including also phrases and sentences.

One of the classic examples of a semantic field is a color naming field consisting of several color ranges ( Red – pink – pinkish – crimson; blue – blue – bluish – turquoise etc.): the common semantic component here is "color".

The semantic field has the following main 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 singled out as an independent language subsystem.

3. The units of the semantic field are connected by certain systemic semantic relations.

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 the language and the possibility of the occurrence of language units in 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 relationships: synonymous ( brag – brag), antonymous ( talk – be silent) etc.

The possibility of such a presentation of vocabulary in the form of a combination of many particular systems of words was already discussed in the 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, 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. Such a representation of the lexical system is primarily a linguistic hypothesis, not an axiom, therefore it 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 relations, and, consequently, all the words of the field are mutually opposed to each other. Semantic fields can intersect or completely enter one another. The meaning of each word is most fully determined only if the meanings of other words from the same field are known. Compare two colors Red – pink And Red - pink – pinkish. If you focus only on the first color row, then several different color shades can be indicated 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 already be correlated with two lexemes - pink And pinkish.

A separate language unit can have several meanings and, therefore, can be assigned to different semantic fields. For example, the adjective Red can be included in the semantic field of color designations and at the same time in the field, the units of which are united by the generalized meaning "revolutionary".

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

The simplest kind 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 the meaning. Such fields are often also referred to as semantic classes or lexico-semantic groups.

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

For example, a group of words wood, branch, trunk, sheet etc. can form both an independent semantic field, united by the relation "part - whole", and be part of the semantic field of plants. In this case, the token wood will serve as a hypernym (generic concept) for such lexemes as, for example, Birch tree, oak, palm etc.

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

An example of a minimal semantic field of a paradigmatic type is a synonymous group, for example, some group of the same verbs of speech. This field is formed by verbs talk, tell, to chat, rattle and others. The elements of the semantic field of verbs of speech are united by the integral semantic sign 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 message" ( inform, report). In addition, they differ in stylistic, usual, derivational and connotative components of meaning. For example, the verb scold, besides the seme "speaking", also has an additional connotative meaning ( cm. CONNOTATION) - negative expressiveness.

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

To identify and describe semantic fields, the 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 ones. linguistic terms: lexical field, synonymic row, lexico-semantic field, etc. Each of these terms more clearly specifies the type of language units included in the field and / or the type of relationship between them. Nevertheless, in many works both the expression "semantic field" and more specialized designations are used as terminological synonyms.

Semantic field - a set of linguistic units united by some common (integral) semantic feature; in other words, having some common nontrivial value component. Initially, the role of such lexical units was considered as units of the lexical level - words; later, descriptions of semantic fields appeared in linguistic works, including also phrases and sentences.

One of the classic examples of a semantic field is a color naming field consisting of several color ranges ( Red– pink – pinkish – crimson; blue – blue – bluish –turquoise etc.): the common semantic component here is "color".

The semantic field has the following main 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 singled out as an independent language subsystem.

3. The units of the semantic field are connected by certain systemic semantic relations.

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

The field stands out core, which expresses the integral seme (archiseme) and organizes the rest 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 the language and the possibility of the occurrence of language units in 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 relationships: synonymous (boast - brag), antonymous (speak - be silent), etc.

A single linguistic unit can have several meanings and, therefore, can be assigned to different semantic fields. For example, the adjective Red can be included in the semantic field of color designations and at the same time in the field, the units of which are united by the generalized meaning "revolutionary".

The simplest kind of semantic field is field of paradigmatic type, the units of which are lexemes belonging to the same part of speech and united by a common categorical seme in meaning, between units of such a field of connection of a paradigmatic type (synonymous, antonymic, genus-species, etc.). Such fields are often also called semantic classes or lexico-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, talk, talk and others. The elements of the semantic field of verbs of speech are united by the integral semantic sign of "speaking", but their meaning not identical.

The lexical system is most fully and adequately reflected in the semantic field - a lexical category of a higher order. Semantic field - it 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 the archiseme that unites them. The field is characterized by a homogeneous conceptual content of its units; therefore, its elements are usually not words that correlate their meanings with different concepts, but lexico-semantic variants.

All vocabulary can be represented as a hierarchy of semantic fields different rank: large semantic spheres of vocabulary are divided into classes, classes - into subclasses, etc., up to elementary semantic microfields. The elementary semantic microfield is lexico-semantic group(LSG) is a relatively closed series of lexical units of one part of speech, united by an archiseme of a more specific content and a hierarchically lower order than the archiseme of the field. The most important structuring relation of elements in the semantic field is hyponymy - his hierarchical system based on genus-species relationships. Words corresponding to specific concepts act as hyponyms in relation to the word corresponding to the generic concept - their hypernym, and as cohyponyms in relation to each other.

The semantic field as such includes words of different parts of speech. Therefore, the units of the field are characterized not only by syntagmatic and paradigmatic, but also by associative-derivational relations. SP units can be included in all types of semantic categorical relations (hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy, conversion, derivation, polysemy). Of course, not every word by its nature enters into any of these 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 implies the presence of its core, center and periphery (“transfer” - the core, “donate, sell” - the center, “build, cleanse” - periphery).

The word appears in the joint venture in all its characteristic connections and various relationships that actually exist in the lexical system of the language.

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 the continuity of the semantic space in the lexicon, when, with the help of multi-step semantic analysis, it is possible to connect words from different semantic fields, seemingly incompatible with each other. Groupings of words according to semantic fields, for all their seeming objectivity, nevertheless 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 into parts of speech appear as a kind of global paradigms. These groupings underlie the creation of the Explanatory Ideographic Dictionary of Russian Verbs. So, for example, it separates the verbs of action and activity into a separate grouping. semantic field is a hierarchical structure of a set of lexical units united by a common invariant meaning and reflecting a common 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. Sem-th 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 singles out a field of paradigmatic type, Korzig - a field of syntagmatic type. The number of units in the seventh field can be relatively limited or VERY large. The researchers compare the structure of the SP with the field in physics: it has a nuclear part, a substance and a wave part. SP is homogeneous, so heterogeneous semantic units are distributed over different semantic fields. FOR EXAMPLE: cut your hair - 1. cut (cut) your hair; 2. become a monk. different meanings polysemantic words fall into different semantic fields. The conceptual field, as an ordered set of names, is based primarily on hyper-hyponymic or genus-species relations. Semantically homogeneous units of the thematic field are combined into lexico-semantic groups (LSG), or elementary microfields, relatively closed rows of words of one part of speech, etc. Subclasses, classes, class classes, semantic macrospheres form a hierarchical system of interrelated conceptual fields. The following are distinguished in the structure of the joint venture: 1. core, i.e. words containing 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. secondary names included by their primary meanings in adjacent joint ventures. They implement the semantics of a given field in specific contextual conditions. FOR EXAMPLE: chocolate (color). Various types of relations are synthesized in the joint venture: - synonymous (give - hand); - antonymous (give - take); - relations of polysemy (transmit: a message on the radio / book); - conversion ratios, i.e. the situation is assessed from the point of view of its participants (give - receive); - hyponyms

(49) Hyponyms in relation to the joint venture are established primarily through the relation to the nearest hypernym and through the relation to the name of the joint venture. SP are multidimensional. SP units are included in three types of relations: paradigmatic (hand-foot-head); syntagmatic (touch-grab-wave); Shmelev also points to associative-derivational 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 sem-th field is one or another element of the system-linguistic field. ( 49 ) Hyper-hyponymic relations are typical for SP. Hyponymy- this is a type of paradigmatic relations in vocabulary, which underlies its hierarchical organization. These are relations 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 sequentially distinguish classes and subclasses of lexical units. FOR EXAMPLE: plant -> flower -> rose. Hyponymy - either the relationship of words of one part of speech, or different (color - red, yellow). However, for example, in the Russian language there is no hypernym for the words "square", "round", etc., which indicates the existence of gaps, uncertainty. Within the framework of the joint venture, there may be incompatibility relations, 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 extralinguistic action (rose and tulip, table and chair). Hyponyms are words that name objects, properties, signs, as elements of a set and are in a relationship of hyponymy with the 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. The hyponym has a narrower scope of the concept, but 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 with some semantic feature. fragment.

(7) SP is the most global lexical paradigm. It is the joint ventures that are presented in ideographic dictionaries. Within the framework of the SP, the most peculiar types of relationships are distinguished. The types of paradigms in the SP are described by Fillur: Classical paradigms (man - woman). Contrastive sets, whose elements are not conceivable outside of the opposition itself (high - low). Taxonomy is a set of words connected by relations of domination (tree - oak, maple). Partonomy - 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 - a set united on the basis of several relationships (terms of kinship). Frame - 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 in terms of reflection from. field is an associative dictionary, because his dictionary entries reflect the following relationships, derived from the meju relationship by the stimulus word and the reaction: , leaves; forest - forest, grove). Syntagmatic - all kinds of possible phrases (for example: forest - dense, green, Russian, cut down). Derivative (for example: forest - forestry, logging). Cultural (for example: forest - Russian forest, Shishkin, “Green oak near the seashore”).