Lexical Meaning Components
The application of the term “semantic component” to the description of the meaning of a word presupposes a preliminary selection of the types of semantic components that form the lexical meaning of the word. A semantic component is a separable part of a lexical meaning that is smaller than the entire meaning. This understanding of the semantic component is common to components of various types. Proceeding from this, we will consider the types of components of the lexical meaning of the word.
In the structural approach to lexical meaning in modern semasiology, three main directions have been outlined. The first of them implicitly proceeds from the homogeneity of the lexical meaning and singles out semantic components of the same degree of complexity in the meaning structure. Within the framework of this direction, all meanings are immediately divided into extremely small semantic components (microcomponents), ideally, atomic semes; as a rule, supporters of the differential concept of meaning take this position (cf. Apresyan, Gak, and others).
The second direction proceeds from the heterogeneity of the lexical meaning; at the same time, “semantic blocks” of different levels of the hierarchy are distinguished in the meaning, which reflect the different nature of the information transmitted by the word. With this approach, the lexical meaning is first divided into large blocks - macrocomponents, which determine the main specifics of the semantics of the word, and only then microcomponents - semes are distinguished as part of the macrocomponents. This approach was implemented in the works of I.V. Arnold, R.S. Ginzburg and others; it can be called macro-component, in contrast to the previous one, which acts as a micro-component.
The third direction can be called aspectual: supporters of this approach isolate in the meaning different aspects(in other terminology - sides, layers, dimensions, moments, parameters, characteristics, types of information, constitutive factors of lexical meaning, etc.), reflecting different sides meanings, various manifestations of meaning in the language system or in speech. The most diverse aspects of meaning are distinguished - significative, denotative, lexical, grammatical, connotative, emotional, evaluative, pragmatic, structural, syntagmatic, compatibility, cultural-historical, ideological, social, linguocultural, background, associative, code, personological, orthological, synchronous, diachronic, explicative, ethical, aesthetic, etc. (see, for example, Komlev, 1969; Kosovsky, 1975, 1974; Devkin, 1979, etc.).
The aspect approach to meaning is only an approach, the first approximation to the structural description of the meaning, but it cannot be considered completely structural: this approach is characterized by the indistinguishability of the concepts “aspect of meaning” and “component of meaning”. Some of the aspects may coincide with the real components of the meaning (mainly macro components), for example, lexical, grammatical, denotative, connotative; basically, aspects are the result of understanding the whole meaning as a whole from any of its sides.
It should be noted that with the aspect approach, and not only with it, due to the tradition of “prestructural semasiology”, the incorrect use of the term “meaning” to denote an aspect of meaning or a component of meaning is still widespread. Analyzing the meaning of a word, linguists - supporters of the aspect approach - distinguish a number of other meanings in this meaning - denotative, significative, paradigmatic, etc. Specialists in the field of stylistics are especially fond of this - the term "stylistic meaning" is very widespread in works on stylistics. It must be clearly understood that the lexical meaning does not contain any other meanings, it can contain only meaning components. To analyze a word in a communicative act, a combination of macro- and micro-component descriptions of the meaning is necessary. Macrocomponent analysis does not exclude microcomponent analysis and does not replace it - both approaches rather imply each other. They must be reflected in the structural model of lexical meaning. As for the aspect approach, it is fruitful in the logical study of meaning, in the study of its place in the system, in order to identify the specifics of the semantics of individual types of words; in the communicative analysis of meaning, it does not find application.
Thus, semantic components can be subdivided into macro components and micro components. Macrocomponents reflect the structuring of the meaning according to the types of transmitted information; they can be isolated in the structure of the meaning and distinguished through semantic oppositions of lexical units.
The denotative macrocomponent, the main one for most words, is subject-conceptual or purely conceptual information associated with the reflection of extra-linguistic reality, objective or subjective. The connotative macrocomponent expresses the attitude of the speaker to the subject of the nomination in the form of emotion and assessment of the denotation. The functional-stylistic macro-component characterizes the belonging of a word to one or another functional style of speech (colloquial, colloquial, bookish, high, solemn, poetic, official business, etc.). The functional-stylistic macro-component is often considered within the framework of connotation, however, it has significant specificity compared to emotion and evaluation, since it characterizes not the attitude to the denotation, but the conditions of the act of communication.
These three macrocomponents, together with the grammatical macrocomponent and, possibly, the phonosemantic macrocomponent of the meaning, which we do not consider here, are the obligatory macrocomponents present in the meaning of any word. There is also an optional macrocomponent, which is characteristic only for words of some semantic categories - an empirical, generalized sensory-visual representation of the subject (for words of specific semantics).
The denotative and connotative macrocomponents single out in their composition microcomponents that characterize certain aspects of the subject of the nomination or attitudes towards it. Such microcomponents are called "semes" in linguistics. The term "sema" to designate a microcomponent of meaning was first used by V. Skalichka (Gulyga, Shendels, 1976). Other terms have been proposed: content plan figures (Elmslev, Prieto), semantic multiplier (Zholkovsky), differential sign (Arnold), semantic marker (Katz, Fodor), semantic primitives (Wierzhbitska), semantic sign (Ufimtseva), etc. It is possible, however, agree with L.A. Novikov that the term seme is preferable ... due to its brevity and formal commensurate correlation with the name of a unit of a higher order - sememe” (1980).
In modern semasiology, this term is used very widely. However, there are also differences in his understanding, which mainly relate to the problem of the limit of the seme. A number of researchers consider the seme as a unit of the limiting level of division of meaning, as a minimal, further indivisible unit (Novikov, 1982; Vasiliev, 1980, 1981; Sokolovskaya, 1979). The group of semes, conceived as a single, but in principle articulated semantic component, in this case receives a special terminological designation - a semantic factor (Vasiliev, 1980, 1981), a semantic feature (Kuznetsov, 1980), or is simply called a semantic component. The idea of the limit of the seme arose along with the method of component analysis by oppositions and was a necessary condition for the implementation of the component analysis of meaning in its classical form. The first experiments in component analysis were carried out on extremely closed, small groups of words, where the problem of delimiting meanings was solved unambiguously and the question of dividing semes did not arise. In other concepts, the seme is considered as a general concept that combines both segmented and non-segmented semantic components. In this case, the seme is only required to be singled out as part of the macrocomponent and be part of it. This position is taken by M.V. Nikitin, who defines the seme as a concept within another concept (1983). A similar approach is also being developed by us: we regard the seme as a semantic component, which can be both limiting, non-segmentable, and segmentable.
The seme in our work is understood as a semantic microcomponent that reflects the specific features of the phenomenon denoted by the word, for example, “face”, “object”, “female”, “instrument”, “young”, “intensity”, etc. The limit of many semes found in meanings, can be called into question, since the seme, considered as the limit at one level of analysis, when moving to a deeper level of consideration of the meaning, may turn out to be complex, consisting of a number of seme<…>.
The limit of dividing a sememe into semes is given by the measure of a human building about denotation. For practical purposes, the division of a sememe into semes is carried out within limited limits, depending on the tasks set. Indivisibility and atomicity characterize this only in relation to the accepted level of component analysis. At another level, this part of the meaning may turn out to be no less complex than the meaning in which it was originally distinguished. Smaller seeds are sort of packed into larger ones like in boxes - it's more convenient to store them in memory and use them. Often, in acts of communication or when describing meaning, these boxes are required as a whole, but if necessary, such a box can be unpacked and its contents used in parts.<…>
Each seme as a microcomponent of meaning consists of two fundamental parts (components) - a semantic feature and a seme concretizer. A semantic feature is understood as a part of a seme that is common with several other semes. Semantic features, for example, will be: “shape” in the semes “round”, “oval”, “square”, “rectangular”, etc.; “coloration” in the semes “bright”, “variegated”, “gray”, “white”, “black”, etc.; “size” in the semes “large”, “small”, “huge”, “tiny”, etc. The seme is more complicated than a semantic attribute, since it contains, in addition to a certain semantic attribute, also a “remainder” - a seme concretizer. A seme concretizer is a part of a seme that concretizes the corresponding semantic feature. For example, in the seme "loudness" the semantic feature "sound" and the semantic concretizer "intensity" are singled out; in the seme "high" - the semantic attribute "vertical size" and the semantic specification "large", in the seme "large" - the semantic attribute "size" and the semantic specification "large", etc. In a number of cases, the seme concretizer turns out to be tautological to the seme and is not amenable to independent interpretation in the metalanguage: the seme “brave” is the semantic attribute “character” and the seme concretizer “bold”, the seme “young” is the semantic attribute “age” and the semantic concretizer “young”.
<…>Semantic features are divided into open and closed. Closed features suggest antonymous seme concretizers that limit this semantic feature. For example: age - young, old; gender - male, female; physical strength - strong, weak, fertility - high, low; size - large, small, etc. There can be more than two seminal concretizers - for example, young, young, adult, elderly, old, etc., but the corresponding semantic feature remains closed, since it contains two antonymic poles - young, old. Open semantic features do not imply antonymous seme concretizers: the corresponding concretizers always form an open series, for example, the semantic features “function”, “character”, “design feature”, etc.
The seme concretizer can in a number of cases be of a sensuously visual rather than rational character, i.e. belong to the empirical component of meaning. Most often this is observed in the semantic attribute "external outlines" - cf. sails of smoke, astrakhan clouds, gramophone flowers, etc. The seed concretizer can be clear (not allowing subjective interpretation) - “male”, “female”, “combustibility”, “non-combustibility”, “the presence of c.-l. sign”, “lack of k.-l. feature”, “animation”, “inanimateness”, etc., and may be fuzzy, the content of which can be interpreted subjectively - “beautiful”, “ugly”, “young”, “old”, “heavy”, “light”, “ smart", "stupid", "high", "low", etc.
In fuzzy seminal concretizers, absolute content and relative significance are distinguished. Absolute content is specific information that directly characterizes the attribute of an object, highlighted by public consciousness. Relative significance, or simply significance, is information about the relative characteristics of an object on a given basis, which is revealed when comparing objects in a person's experience. There are semes with a complete seme concretizer that has both absolute content and relative significance. For example: a girl is a semantic attribute “age”, the absolute content of a seme concretizer is “young”, the relative significance is “older than a girl, a child, younger than a woman, an old woman, a pensioner”, etc.
There are also semes with an incomplete seme concretizer, which has a relative significance, but does not have an absolute content. In this case, the public consciousness has not singled out an independent attribute of this subject, although it fixes the ranking of objects according to this attribute. For example: a boy is a semantic attribute “weight”, there is no absolute content of the concretizer (there is no information about the specific weight of a boy), but the relative significance is present - “less than a man, a woman, a wardrobe, a car, more book, portfolio”, etc.
In the structure of the sememe, in addition, there may be autonomous semantic features, i.e. semes without a seme concretizer, for example: a person is a semantic attribute "age", there is no semantic concretizer, there is neither absolute content nor significance.
One and the same semantic feature can be represented in one meaning as part of a particular seme, and in another - autonomously. For example, the semantic feature "gender" is presented as an autonomous feature in the meanings of words chief, tall, orphan, child and etc.; in the meaning of words woman, man, girl, grandson, wife it will be included in the seme "male" and "female". Similarly, the semantic attribute "size" remains autonomous in the meanings of words cave, pool, market, ball, fence, street, but presented in specific size semes in words giant, piece, avenue, elephant, bug, tower, tower etc. Autonomous signs indicate that the corresponding object has the characteristics they designate, but do not indicate what the specific content of these signs is. Yes, in the meaning of the word box contains autonomous semantic signs "color", "shape", "size", "material of manufacture", etc., which indicate that any box has these signs, but which ones specifically - it depends solely on the situation.
There are difficulties in distinguishing between autonomous semantic features and peripheral semes. Thus, the semantic feature "material of manufacture" in the sense of the word box can be considered both as an autonomous (material can be any), and as a probabilistic seme "made of cardboard", since this is a frequently observed type of box. The same is true about the shape - the sign "quadrangular" is most likely, although the box can be of any other shape. Seme concretizers that are probabilistic in nature do not exclude the possibility of other seme concretizers within the framework of a given semantic feature. The set of semantic features for a language is apparently calculable in principle, although it has not yet been identified in practice.
It seems that it is through the calculation of semantic features that one can adequately describe the system of semantic elements of a language. The composition of semantic features depends on the belonging of the word to a certain semantic category. Thus, the semantic sign "Form" is present in the meanings of words denoting individual material objects (tree, window, mountain, cloud, house, fist, telephone, briefcase, etc.), but is absent in the meanings of words denoting materials and substances (water, sand, soil, milk, cloth), phenomenal objects (wind, whistle, noise, earthquake). The semantic features "professional affiliation", "family relations", "education", etc. are inherent only in the meanings of words-names of persons, the semantic features "way of eating", "color", "distribution environment" are present in the names of animals, the semantic feature "intensity » is included in the meanings of only event words, etc.
The status of the semantic component of the meaning - whether it is a seme or an autonomous semantic attribute, or a seme with an incomplete seme specification - depends on the degree of materiality of the reflected attribute for the corresponding object. If, for example, the sign of form is the main, essential for the object (cf. ball, cross, dome, etc.), then in the meaning this sign is represented by the corresponding seme, and it will most often be included in the core of the meaning. If such signs turn out to be non-basic for the object, then the seme can be probabilistic, peripheral, for example: a pipe is a long hollow object, usually round; lens - a kind of optical glass with curvilinear, mostly spherical surfaces etc. In such cases, semes with an incomplete seme specification may also be present in the meaning.
If the sign of the form is not essential for the object and is inherent in it only by virtue, say, of its belonging to the class of material separateness, the form can be represented by an autonomous semantic sign without semantic concretization, as in the words animal, cloud, germ, model, bone and etc.
Autonomous semantic features can be updated in a communicative act ( big house- the semantic attribute "size" of the meaning of the word is updated house; a beautiful house is a semantic sign of "attractiveness"), and may remain out of date - in the examples given with the word house such will be the shape, color, “location, cost, etc. In the case of the communicative relevance of these features of the referent (a particular house) for the speech recipient, he can ask a question specifying precisely these features (for example, what color is the house, where is it located, how much does it cost, etc.) d.), which indicates the reality of these semantic features as components of the semantic structure of meaning<…>.
The difference between semes and semantic features in the meaning of a word is also found in speech when they are explicated in phrases: verbal explication (duplication of semes), especially from the core of the meaning, is characterized by low information content, since these features are well known, while the communicative explication of an autonomous semantic feature is always informative, as it is a situational concretization. Wed examples given by M.V. Nikitin: the combination tiger - predator is not very informative, it will be informative only in "teaching communication", but not in natural speech, where such an explication is trivial (cf.: house - building, student - person, etc. .). But the combination house - big, empty, high, etc. will be informative, since this is not an explication of existing semes, but an explication of autonomous features with their concretization in a communicative act (Nikitin, 1983).
Semantic features perform the most important function in the language - a system-forming one: it is by semantic features that are common to a number of meanings that lexical units form series, groups and paradigms, i.e. lexical system of the language. As a type of semantic features, they play an essential role in the structure of meaning. It can be assumed that the compatibility of a particular sememe is due not to individual semes included in its structure, but to semantic features that are present in the sememe (regardless of whether they are presented autonomously in the structure of the sememe or are part of any semes). Semantic features carry information about the permitted range of units that can be combined with a given seme. For example, in the meanings of words denoting individual material objects (boat, book, stump, mirror, shovel), the semantic attribute "size" allows compatibility with words containing dimensional semes - large, large, small, bulky, etc.; the semantic sign “form” is compatibility with words denoting various forms of an object, etc. At the same time, it is impossible to combine these words with adjectives containing the semantic feature "strength" (strong, weak, powerful), "intensity", etc., since such semantic features are absent in the meanings of these nouns.
A special place in the structure of lexical meaning is occupied by a component designated by us, for want of a better term, by the term "aspect". The aspect of meaning is a set of semes that reflect the object of the nomination from one side. For example, the material and material aspect, temporal, biological, spatial, etc. are distinguished. The aspect combines such semes that are comprehended in the structure of meaning in one plan<…>. In real communication, the compatibility of a word usually reflects one or another aspect. Thus, the word student is realized in the biological aspect in combinations such as student eats, sleeps, grows, gets sick, young, lame, etc., in the material aspect - heavy, lies, swims, pale, fell, etc., in social -psychological aspect - the student reads, speaks, studies, is smart, makes friends, votes, is cheerful, etc.
Let us name the main aspects that stand out in the meanings of nouns and are most often found in communication:
1) material-material (characterizes an object in terms of its physical, sensually perceived properties);
2) biological (characterizes the features inherent in the object as a biological being);
3) temporal (characterizes signs that reflect various aspects of the existence of an object in time);
4) spatial (reflects different aspects of the existence of an object in space);
5) constructive (characterizes the features that reflect the internal features of the organization of the object);
6) socio-psychological (reflects the socio-psychological characteristics of the object);
7) functional-activity (characterizes the features of the functioning of the object);
8) utilitarian (characterizes the features that reflect the use of the object, handling it);
9) social significance (characterizes the place, the role of the object in the system of social significance);
10) socio-cultural (reflects the features that characterize the socio-cultural features of the existence or functioning of the object).
The aspect includes both semes and autonomous semantic features. The presence of nuclear and peripheral semes in the meaning leads to the dominance in the semantics of the word of those aspects in which the most striking nuclear semes appear, and aspects with peripheral semes are relegated to the background. For example, in many names of persons, the temporal aspect is represented by the seme of age, but in some words this seme dominates, is nuclear (child, old woman, youth, veteran), in others it is probabilistic (soldier, student, schoolboy, pensioner), in others it is completely weak (engineer, translator, wife, boss). Accordingly, in the words of the first group, the temporal aspect will dominate, in the words of the second group it will be less noticeable, and in the words of the third group it will be practically absent (although these words will contain negative temporary semes “not young, not childish”).
The presence of various aspects in the meanings of words explains a number of cases of word compatibility or restrictions on compatibility. So, you can say a tall person, but not a high personality (Lebedeva, 1982), since the adjective tall characterizes the material aspect of the name, and in the meaning of the word personality this aspect is absent, not represented at all, the leading aspects of this meaning are socio-psychological and socio-cultural. Word plate has in its meaning the material-material, spatial, constructive, utilitarian, socially significant and socio-cultural aspects (some of them are more important, others are less important), but it does not, for example, have biological and socio-psychological aspects, therefore it is impossible to say : the plate grows, sleeps, dies, cultural, courageous, kind, etc. What is sometimes called group compatibility can, therefore, be considered as a reflection of the presence in the meaning of certain semantic aspects, however, this does not violate the integrity of the meaning, does not break it into separate meanings, since the aspects completely fit into a single meaning structure, internally organizing her.
The context actualizes a certain aspect in the meaning of the word, and certain semes within it. Several aspects can be actualized simultaneously without contradicting each other. Separate aspects in the structure of meaning can be connected with each other, reflecting the real extralinguistic connection of their constituent features. The constructive and functional-activity aspects, material-material and constructive, temporal and biological, constructive and utilitarian, functional-activity and utilitarian, socio-cultural with temporal and spatial aspects, etc. are especially closely related. Words of different thematic groups have different aspects, and also different aspects are dominant in words of different semantic categories. So, the biological aspect is characteristic for the names of plants, animals and people, the functional and activity aspect is for the names of moving and capable of moving objects, the material and utilitarian aspect is for all material objects, the socio-psychological aspect is for persons, the socio-cultural aspect is for artifacts. etc.
The peculiarity of the aspect as a component of the meaning of a word is that it cannot be singled out in the meaning as a separate structural element, like macrocomponents and semes. This is due to its lack of differential functions in the language system and the lack of the need to update it in a communicative act - the aspect as a whole cannot be communicatively relevant, since it is too voluminous and heterogeneous in structure. At the same time, the presence of various aspects in the structure of meaning is beyond doubt. Aspect is a special type of semantic component. Being a part of the meaning, less than the whole meaning, and less than the denotative macrocomponent of the meaning, it is not at the same time a differential component of the meaning, it cannot be distinguished by the method of opposition. Unlike other components, which are distinguished by the analysis of meaning, the aspect of meaning is distinguished by the synthesis of semes, reflecting the same side of the object of the nomination.
Taking into account the distinguished types of semantic components, the sememe structure can be represented as a hierarchy of components:
macrocomponents
semes (complete and incomplete); autonomous semantic features
| " |
The concept of the LZ component. Macro- and microcomponents of the semantic structure of the word. Denotative component of the LZ. denotation and reference. Significant component of LZ. LZ and concept. Concepts everyday and scientific.
Structural (paradigmatic and syntagmatic) components of LZ. Motivating component of LZ. The concept of the internal form of the word. Pragmatic component of LZ. Emotional, expressive and stylistic coloring of the word. The concept of connotation. Methods of semantic analysis. Component (seme) analysis. The concept of seme. Typology of the family.
If we return to the definition of LZ, we will see that LZ is due to a number of factors, both linguistic and extralinguistic (non-linguistic). These include, first of all, reality (relation to the subject), thinking (relation to the concept) and the language system (relation to the language). In addition, the LP also reflects the mental, emotional activity of a person, his attitude to the signified, or pragmatics. This conditionality by various factors is the basis of the structure of the DL, or its component composition. A component is understood, therefore, as a component of the LZ, due to a certain factor, or aspect of its consideration. These components can be considered macrocomponents, in contrast to the smaller ones into which they are decomposed, or microcomponents, which we will talk about a little later.
Each word is associated with certain objects and phenomena of the world around us, because. calls them. This is how the objective relation of the word finds expression in LZ: the word names objects, i.e. realities of the surrounding world, "pieces of reality". It is this aspect of LZ V.V. Vinogradov and called "object-material content". The connection of the word with the object of the real world lies in the fact that the LZ reflects the main features of the named objects, the most essential for distinguishing given word(and the object he calls) from others. In fact, the definitions in explanatory dictionaries and represent an enumeration of these signs of realities. For example: HOUSE - "a building, a structure (with walls, a roof, windows, etc.) created by people and intended for a person to live or his activity." The named object can be not only real, but also imagined, imaginary, even a “fantastic construct” (mermaid, centaur), and this is also (or should be) reflected in the LZ and its interpretation. For example: DOMOVOI - "according to the superstitious ideas of the Slavic peoples: a good or evil spirit living in the house." At the same time, the “subject” here is understood quite broadly, i.e. like any reality: not only material things, but also the signs attributed to them and the actions performed by them or with them, etc. For example: HOME - “related to the house, intended for the house or living in the house”; HOUSEHOLDING - "to do housework, housework." Therefore, the word “subject” is more often replaced by the term denotate (lat.: denoted) or referent (designated object), or simply signified. Correlation of a word with an object, reality (denotation, referent) in this case is called denotative (referential) relation, and the corresponding component (or aspect) of LZ is called a denotative component, or denotative meaning. The terms denotate and referent are sometimes used as synonyms, but sometimes they are distinguished as general (denotate - an object as a representative of a class of objects) and private (referent - a specific designated object of speech) subject relatedness (see.
Above - meaning and meaning): HOUSE in general and HOUSE, which I am talking about now; any brownie and brownie A.S. Pushkin ("I pray you, my good brownie, save the village, forest and my wild garden"). This feature of the word to call simultaneously the general and the particular was well expressed by L.V. Shcherba in his “Experience ...”: “When I say philosopher, it can mean some philosopher (I would like to print an article and a philosopher), or any philosopher (a philosopher is used to appreciating form) or a given philosopher (a philosopher approached his interlocutor ), the last meaning of the function in speech is more or less synonymous with a proper name, instead of which the philosopher is said in the latter case.
Only significant words have subject relatedness. Service words and interjections, without naming objects of reality, i.e. without performing a nominative function, they have no denotative reference.
However, words and their LZs are related to the real world not directly, but through the concept, thinking (categories of logic). The essential features of a number of homogeneous objects are generalized in our minds into the concept of these objects (through the previous stages of human cognition of reality: perception and representation). Based on the totality of such essential features, we get an idea and make up a concept about some realities, even unfamiliar ones. The concept, therefore, is a generalized image of an object, a thought about an object that distinguishes it essential features. It is in this generalized form that the concept is embodied in the word, in its LZ. The correlation of a word with a concept is called a conceptual relationship, and the corresponding macrocomponent of the LZ is called a lexical concept, or a significat (less often, a designate), or a significative meaning.
All words have a significative relation (significative meaning), even if they do not have a denotative relation, i.e. not only significant, but also official, and interjections, and pronouns, although there is no consensus on this issue (as well as on proper names, which do not generalize). Nevertheless, the LZ of these categories of words contain, albeit the most generalized, but concepts of connections and relationships in reality. Their LZ meanings are as individual as those of the words “full-meaning”, therefore we will always distinguish the preposition POD from NA by their LZ (and even see their semantic opposition, antonymy), the union A from I, the particle ZHE from EVEN, the interjection AH from FU, and the pronoun OH is from THAT. The generalized concept that they express is their LZ (it is no coincidence that in the school textbook of the Russian language for the 5th grade, LZ is simply defined as “what the word means”). On this subject, see, for example, the remark of E.A. Starodumova about particles (in the book: “Particles of the Russian Language”, 2002): “Based on the universal definition of the two-sidedness of a linguistic sign, then a particle, like any word, ... has its own meaning that distinguishes each particle from others ... Let's say , units such as exactly, only, even, after all, perhaps, etc. exist to express different meanings and cannot be used in speech indifferently, without any choice. Since the individual meaning of individual particles is not in doubt, their meanings should be defined as lexical ... ".
Concepts can be everyday and scientific. Everyday concepts are expressed in primary generalizations, everyday ideas of people about reality. They are embodied in the everyday meanings of words, their lexical concepts reflect a naive picture of the world. On the basis of everyday thinking, scientific thinking develops, carried out in the form scientific concepts. These concepts are expressed by terminological meanings of words. So, in the word WATER in everyday terms, they stand out as essential features "a liquid without color and odor, which can be drunk, which can be washed." In scientific terms, such signs as "a substance that is a combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom" come first. Often this difference can be seen in the examples of the description of the word in the explanatory dictionary and terminological or encyclopedic. The first usually describes the everyday meanings of words. The second - terminological, or the concepts themselves. Everyday meanings are more individual for each carrier, scientific ones are more objective. This distinction between value types is based on the reasoning of A.A. Potebni about the "proximate" and "further" meaning of the word. The first is national, it generalizes only the most essential features of the subject, the second - all its features, it is the basis for everyday, individual meaning. “From personal understanding arises the highest objectivity of thought, scientific, but not otherwise than through people's understanding” (A.A. Potebnya. “From Notes on Russian Grammar”). Another "further" development of meanings is figurative thinking, which forms the artistic or aesthetic meanings of words. They are even more individual - each author (poet or writer). Let's compare the everyday concept expressed by the word BIRCH (“The white birch under my window was covered with snow, like silver”), scientific and botanical (Birch is common in central Russia) and individually authorial, for example, by S. Yesenin (“Sleepy birches smiled, disheveled silk braids”), however, the idea of a birch-girl is deeply popular (recall the riddle about a birch: a thin camp, a white sundress).
Thus, LZ is, first of all, the subject-conceptual (denotative-significative) reference of a word, for brevity, it is most often called simply a denotative (or conceptual) meaning.
However, LZ as a linguistic category cannot be reduced to this alone: it is also conditioned by the language itself, primarily by its system, or rather, by its place in the language system. This aspect of the LZ is called structural meaning. Structural significance is manifested in the features of its structure, i.e. the presence of microcomponents determined by the lexical system of the language (recall the 3rd part of the definition of LZ).
From the course "Introduction to Linguistics" you already know that the language system is represented by two types of relations: paradigmatics (i.e. relations based on the similarity or opposition of concepts) and syntagmatics (i.e. relations based on the adjacency of concepts, compatibility of words). Both determine the component composition of the individual DL of each word. For example, in the LZ of the word DOM “building for human habitation”, we single out not only the “building” component, but also the “dwelling” component, because there are words that call buildings not for habitation (barn, barn), a component "for a person", because there are words that call dwelling (and building) for animals (cowshed, stable). LZ synonyms HOUSE, BUILDING, BUILDING, BUILDING differ in components: type of structure, size, material, purpose, etc. (BUILDING - small, household, usually wooden, BUILDING - usually large, stone, and HOUSE is usually residential and can be wooden). All these components are distinguished in the individual LZ of each word due to their systemic paradigmatic (in this case, synonymous) connections (We will talk more about the lexical system from the point of view of paradigmatics and syntagmatics later, in the next topic). These synonyms also differ in compatibility: for example, one can say a theater building, a university building, but such combinations with the word DOM are impossible (this is prevented by the “dwelling” component in the LZ of the latter). And vice versa, it is impossible to use the word BUILDING as part of the address, only the word HOUSE, because the address primarily implies residence. (See: "New Explanatory Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language", issue 2).
Thus, we are talking about a structural meaning when we assume that the LZ is the structure of microcomponents, the composition of which is determined by the paradigmatics and syntagmatics of the word.
Thus, the conditionality of LZ by synonymic relations is expressed in the distribution of features of one concept in LZ of semantically close words. If the word is not in synonymous relations with other words, all the essential features of the concept are concentrated in its one meaning. This can be especially clearly demonstrated by comparing the correlative words of different languages. For example, the word ODIN in Russian means "without others, apart from others, alone" and has no synonyms. AT English language this meaning is distributed in a number of synonyms that differ in the components of the general meaning: the intensity of the state of loneliness, emphasizing the very fact of physical or spiritual isolation, etc. (ALONE - “Soames was left alone again”; SOLITARI - “He imagined how he would go wandering alone in search of good luck” (that is, alone, alone with himself); LONELY - “You can be alone even in the crowd” (ie. e. lonely); and others: LONESOME, FORLONE, DESOLATE (see: "English-Russian synonymous dictionary"). Reverse example: one Czech word HNEDY in Russian corresponds to a number of synonyms that differ in shades of meaning: BROWN (“dark brown-yellow, cinnamon color”), COFFEE (“dark brown, roasted coffee color”), CHOCOLATE (“dark dark brown, chocolate color” ), CHESTNUT (“light brown, chestnut color”), BAY (“brown, about the color of the horse”, BROWN (“dark brown”, about the color of the eyes) - the last component is syntagmatically determined.
It is the systemic connections between words that determine the formation of the same type figurative meanings(by analogy) for words of the same lexical-semantic group, for example, for zoomorphism words (names of animals used in a figurative metaphorical sense to characterize a person): HARE - “coward”, FOX - “cunning”, BEAR - “clumsy person” etc. However, the transfer of meaning stops when a name already exists to denote a given concept in the lexical system of the language. For example, the names of many fruit trees (PEAR, PLUM, APRICOT, CHERRY, etc.) are also used in a figurative metonymic meaning to refer to the fruits of this tree (cf.: plant a plum and jam from plums), but the word APPLE does not develop such a meaning, because that to designate the fruit of an apple tree in the lexical system of the Russian language there is the word APPLE.
The word is an element not only of the lexical, but also of the grammatical system of the language. Therefore, the change in the grammatical status of a word is also reflected in its lexical semantics. For example, when a word moves from one lexico-grammatical class to another, its LZ also changes: cf. tablespoon and student canteen.
The conditionality of LZ by the grammatical system of the language can also manifest itself in the dependence of individual lexical meanings on grammatical form word or grammatical structure. For example, in the form plural a noun can develop another DL: cf. trotting horse run and go to the races ("competitions, horse races on the hippodrome"). We will talk in more detail about grammatically determined meanings in the next topic “Types of LZ”.
Thus, LZ turns out to be determined not only by the subject-conceptual relation of the word, but also by the lexical and grammatical system of the language, the place of the word in this system. This also determines the component composition of the LZ, in particular the set of microcomponents of the denotative part of the meaning (DZ).
However, the component composition of the semantic structure of the word is not limited to this either. Not only the subject and concept, as well as the place in the system, determine the nature of the LZ, but also the attitude of the speaker to the named object. This aspect of the semantics of the word is called pragmatic, or pragmatics, which is to some extent additional and even somewhat opposed to the denotative. If the denotative component of the meaning contains information about the called object of reality, then the pragmatic one contains information about the person's attitude to this object.
For example, the words DOM, DOMIK and DOMISHKO, with the same DZ (“building for human habitation”), differ in the expression of their attitude to the denotation: neutral, positive and negative.
Sometimes this component of meaning is called connotative, or connotation (lat.: connotatio - "additional meaning"). In a narrow sense, connotations include emotionally expressive, evaluative or stylistic information, in a broad sense - any additional component of meaning (associative, background, national-cultural, etc.).
Under the emotional connotation (or emotional coloring of the word) is meant the expression by the word of emotions, feelings (in addition to DZ): irony, jokes, affection, contempt, etc. For example: BEGGING ("humiliatingly, importunately asking" - contemptuously). Usually emotional coloring words are shown in dictionaries with the help of appropriate labels. For example: HOUSE - mind-weasel.
Expressive coloring is the same as emotional coloring, but it is also information about intensification (strengthening of a feature). For example: HOUSE - will strengthen. to HOUSE.
An evaluative connotation is an expression of approval or disapproval. For example: DOMINA - disapproves. to HOUSE. Most often they are combined, because. complement each other, therefore they are called together an emotional-evaluative connotation.
Stylistic connotation is information about the use of a word in a certain style (stylistic coloring of a word). For example: HOUSE, HOUSE. DOMINA - colloquial, PENATES - high.
Thus, connotation is understood as a non-denatative and non-grammatical meaning, emotional and stylistic content that is part of the semantics of a word (or represents it in its entirety).
As already mentioned, connotations (in the broadest sense) include both socio-historical and national-cultural information. For example, the word TEREM contains information that in the old days in Russia the boyar house was called (the components “in the old days”, “in Russia”, “boyar” are cultural and historical connotations). We will talk in more detail about the national-cultural component of meaning in a special topic later.
Connotations (K) are sometimes considered to be various kinds of associations and symbols (symbolic meanings). For example, many animal names contain such connotations (from which figurative meanings are sometimes formed): CAT - a symbol of laziness, DONKEY - stupidity, PIG - uncleanliness, etc.
Thus, the semantic structure of a word consists of a number of macrocomponents: GZ + LZ (DZ) + (SZ) + (K). Many of these components can also be considered as part of the LZ, then its structure can be represented as follows: LZ \u003d KZ + (GZ) + (SZ) + DZ + K.
For example: DOMISHKO
KZ - "subject"
GZ - “inanimate” (other GZs are not included in the LZ of this word)
SZ - "small"
DZ - "house": "building", "for housing", "person"
K - derogatory, contemptuous; unfold
The main thing in this structure is, of course, DZ (denotative meaning) - information about the object.
No less important are grammatical meanings, of which only KZ (categorical, part-of-speech meaning) is an obligatory component of the LZ, the rest of the GZ are not included in the LZ or only some are included: for example, the gender of m or f. animated nouns, because these GCs are motivated objective reality: living / non-living, male / female (rather, these are lexical and grammatical meanings).
SZ is also an obligatory component of LZ, but only for derivative words (non-derivative words do not have them at all).
Not every word has a k (connotation), and this component is always complementary to the DZ.
Some words are motivated, i.e. is understandable, we will explain the reason for their nomination (why it is called so): OPENOK (grows on stumps), WINDOW SILL (located under the window), WEDNESDAY (average day of the week). This feature, which is the basis of the name, is called the motivating component of the semantics of the word (word motivation), or the etymological meaning. Since it is reflected in the sound shell (phonetic form) of the word, it is also called the internal form of the word (WF) - the term was introduced by A.A. Potebnya. Thus, the semantic structure of motivated words can also include this component. Words with a clear WF are called motivated.
For example, the LZ of the word COCK consists of the following components: KZ (“object”), GZ (“animate”, “masculine”), DZ (“bird”, “chicken families”, “male”, “with bright plumage and large red crest"), VF ("sings" - that's why it is called so), K ("fighter"). Thus, the word COCK is motivated.
However, the WF can be lost, forgotten. So the words MAN, TABLE, CURRANT, hut, etc. are no longer motivated. The loss of VF is called de-etymologization. A special science (a section of historical lexicology) - etymology - is engaged in the search and study of the forgotten VF. The etymological meanings of words are given in special etymological dictionaries. So, the etymology of the word STOL is “to lay” (to lay), i.e. something bedded, and the words IZBA - (istba) - "to heat" - that is, a warm house, a house with a stove. Words with a lost WF are called unmotivated. Compare the words GLOVE, GLOVE and MITTEN. The first two have a clear WF (hand, finger), so they are motivated, but the last one is unmotivated, its WF has been lost, and you can recognize it only by the etymological dictionary (VAREZHKA - varega / varga - from Old Russian var - "protection").
The loss of VF occurs because the sign underlying the name is not always the most significant, but most often just the first one that caught my eye. Therefore, even if the WF is understandable, it is not always a component of the LZ and therefore often is not even reflected in the interpretation of the LZ. For example, in the interpretation of the word WEDNESDAY, it is only noted that this is the "third day of the seven-day week", and that it is the "middle" is often not mentioned. But in the meanings of the words TUESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY their motivating sign is included ("second day of the week", "fourth day of the week", "fifth day of the week"). This discrepancy between the real and etymological meanings is often noticed by children: let us recall examples from the famous book by K. Chukovsky “From Three to Five”: “Why Shrovetide? We should have a crepe maker, because we don’t eat butter, but pancakes. ”
Speaking about the components of the LZ, we indicated macrocomponents, but in the examples we have already cited microcomponents more than once, i.e. elementary units of meaning. It is the conceptual core of the word, its DZ, that can be divided into smaller units of meaning, each of which corresponds to a certain attribute of the called object (denotation). For example, HOUSE: 1) "building"; 2) "for housing"; 3 persons". Each of these microcomponents is usually called the term seme, and the very method of decomposition of LZ into semes is called component or seme analysis. The totality of elementary meanings (seme) constitutes the structure of the LZ, or sememe. (Thus, the semantic structure of the word as a whole also includes grammatical features, or semes, often called grammemes). The elementary unit of the semantic structure of the word is, therefore, the seme, which “is a reflection in the minds of native speakers of distinctive features that are objectively inherent in the denotation, or attributed to it by this language environment and, therefore, are objective in relation to each speaker” (V.G. . Gak). As a matter of fact, in the descriptive interpretation of the LZ in explanatory dictionaries, each word of the interpretation points to any one sign of the subject (semu).
Since the LZ of a word is a structure, then the semes in it are organized in a special way, i.e. are a kind of hierarchy. In this regard, it is customary to distinguish between the following types of semes: archiseme (generic, main seme) and differential (specific, distinctive) semes.
For example, in the LZ the words DOM are the archiseme “building” (it is common for all words that name any buildings, for example, SHED, COWSHED, etc.), and the differential semes are “for housing” (and not for something else, cf. SHED) and “human” (and not animal, cf. cowshed). Thus, differential semes are distinguished relative to other words.
There are also facultative semes (optional), peripheral semes (secondary) and potential semes. They reflect insignificant (indistinguishable) features of the object, which, however, may appear under certain conditions. For example: FIR-TREE: 1) "tree" - archisema; 2) "coniferous"; 3) "evergreen"; 4) "cone-shaped" - differential semes; 5) “symbol of the New Year” - a potential seme (Do not forget to buy a Christmas tree; “The Christmas tree cried at first from home warmth ...”).
It is on their basis that derivative, figurative meanings often develop. For example, in the semantics of the word DOM, in addition to the already distinguished semes, one can single out the potential “for family living”, on the basis of which one of the derivative meanings of the word “family” arose (cf.: make friends at home).
In the method of component analysis, the seme record can be represented in encrypted form, for example, using letters:
A - archisema,
b, c - differential semes,
(d) (e) - potential semes.
Such an approach to the analysis of the semantics of a word makes it possible to compare the distinguishing features of different words and to reveal their systemic relations on the basis of the identity or opposition of the distinguishing features. So, with the synonymy of words, the essential distinguishing features coincide. For example:
HOUSE: building, for housing, person (family) A b c (d)
hut: building, for housing, person (family) (village) A b c (d) (e)
Component analysis allows you to establish integral (identical) and distinctive features in one lexical-semantic group of words, for example, “human dwellings”: HOUSE, hut, house, palace, terem, in which words can be grouped according to integral and differential features: “material” (wooden or stone), “location” (urban or rural), “national” (Russian or non-Russian), “wealth” (poor or rich), etc. (See Table 3):
Table 3. Component analysis of LSG "human dwelling". Explanations to the table: A - archiseme (genus); b, c - differential (species) semes: b - appearance, material; c - social status; (d) - potential semes, national-cultural connotations.
General semantic features also make it possible to establish systemic links within a word (between its individual meanings). For example, in the word DOM, identical (integral) semes connect all initial and derived meanings:
1) a structure for housing a person (family),
2) family (members of the same clan, relatives),
3) genus (several related generations from the same root),
4) dynasty (ruling clan).
Component analysis also opens up new possibilities for the lexicographic description of the semantics of a word: using a set of semes, or, as they are also called, semantic factors. Thus, in the automated "Russian Semantic Dictionary" (Yu.N. Karaulov et al., 1982), the meanings are presented in the form of "an encoded record of the meaning of each unit as a set of semantic factors." For example, in the word DOM, the following semantic factors (encoded by the roots of words) are highlighted: 1. apartment-, 2. lived-, 3. seven-, 4. together-, 5. build-, 6. building-, 8. household-, 9. people-, 10. house-, 11. room-, 12. living-.
This is convenient for identifying various semantic relationships, and we will use such a notation in the further conversation about the LZ and the systemic relationships of the word: homonyms, synonyms, antonyms, etc.
Semantic transformations are the most numerous and most diverse. The interlingual lexico-semantic asymmetry that determines these transformations leads to the fact that the translated text never happens and cannot be semantically identical to the original message. The question arises: what should be the semantic correspondence of the translated text to the original text in order to consider these texts equivalent? In order to try to resolve this issue, one should turn to the semantic model of translation, more precisely, to its variety, which is built on component analysis. The method of component analysis, used for the first time in the 50s. XX century, is based on the hypothesis that the meaning of each language unit consists of semantic components - family The semes that make up the meaning of individual lexical units can be subdivided into archisemes, differential semes, and potential semes (virtuems) 1 . Archisemes reflect those features of the content of concepts that are characteristic of a number of concepts that are combined into classes. Yes, concepts to speak, to pronounce, to grumble, to squeak, to shout, to exclaim, to shout will be united by the archiseme human sound production;to bark, to meow, to crow, to crow and others - archiseme animal sound production. AT at the same time, all together they will be united by the archiseme sound production. The semantic hierarchy turns out to be extremely important for translation. It underlies translation operations based on the transition from more specific concepts to more general ones, and vice versa.
Differential semes concentrate in themselves those features of the content of a concept that distinguish it from others. Together, they form the core of the meaning of words. So, the Russian verb form crawled in addition to the archiseme of motion, referring it to other verbs of motion, it will contain the semes of the beginning (movement), mode of action (crouching with the body to the surface), masculine and singular of the subject of the action, past tense, characteristics of the action (slowly). In the general structure of the elementary meanings of this form, we can find signs inherent in the verb crawl in his name
1 See: Gak V. G. Comparative lexicology. M., 1977. S. 14-15. 398
form - infinitive and, accordingly, in any other (1 - movement, 2 - crouching with the body to the surface, 3 - slowly), in the corresponding prefixed form - crawled (the beginning of the action), in the corresponding personal form (1 - masculine and 2- singular the subject of the action) in the appropriate species-temporal form (the action has already begun, i.e. its beginning has happened). Among the differential semes inherent in the verb crawl in all forms, the seme stands out slowly. This seme belongs to the category of secondary, or potential, as it reflects a secondary sign of action. As noted by V.G. So, potential semes play an important role in speech: the appearance of figurative meanings in words is associated with them. Accordingly, a variety of paths are built on them, including interlingual, translation.
The concept of the seme made it possible at one time to build a semantic model of translation, which clearly shows that in translation it can hardly be repeated, the semantic structure of the signs of the original speech work is cloned.
This scheme shows how the meaning of a certain unit of orientation (EO), perceived by the translator's consciousness (PZ - translating link), is split into elementary meanings, among which the most significant ones are selected ( b, d) which must be kept. At the same time, naturally, some
1 Gak V.G. Decree. op. S. 15.
cops of meaning fall out (a, c, e). After that, a translation unit (TU) is selected in the target language, which has these meaning units (b, d). Of course, in most cases it can also have other elementary meanings, which, willy-nilly, are added to the general system of meanings of the message, which sometimes leads to distortions and in all cases gives a not quite symmetrical picture of the situation described in the original in translation.
The question arises: how many elementary meanings must be retained in order for the translation of a given unit to be considered equivalent?
J. Catford, who analyzed the contextual relations of linguistic units, i.e. connection of grammatical or lexical units with linguistically relevant elements in situations. where these units are used, as, for example, in texts, uses the concept of contextual meaning in his theory of translation 1 . A contextual meaning is a set of situational elements that are relevant to a given linguistic form. The combination of situational elements varies from language to language and is very rarely the same in any pair of languages. Catford gives an example of the following situation: a girl enters and says: / have arrived. Translated into Russian, this statement will most likely take the form: I came. If we compare the sets of elements of situations reflected in the original and translated statements, we can see not only their asymmetry, but also the number of matching and different elements:
The English utterance contains a set of four elements of meaning, reflecting four features of the situation, and the Russian equivalent contains six. The total sum of the sense elements is seven. The scheme clearly shows that only three of the seven elements of meaning coincide, i.e. slightly less than half.
1 See: Catford J.K. Linguistic theory of translation // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics. M., 1978. S. 106 et seq.
To make sure that in order to achieve equivalence in translation it is enough to convey only half of the set of elementary meanings, we will conduct the same experiment on the material of another pair of languages, namely Russian and French. Let's take a small statement from Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog and its translation: The dog crawled like a snake on its belly- Le chien s "approche, rampant sur le ventre comme un serpent.
Seme analysis of the utterance shows that the original message contains a set of 15 semes, and the translated message contains 17. Total number the seme of both statements is 22, and the number of coinciding semes is 11, i.e. is exactly half. The greatest difference is noted in the group denoting movement, where only three out of 12 semes coincide. If we exclude the singular seme of the subject performing the action, which duplicates the seme, then
held in a name consistent with the verb, then there are only two coinciding semes. Russian verb crawled contains the semes of both the actual movement, and the stages of movement (the beginning), and the method of movement, and the speed of movement. French verb s "approcher conveys only motion and approximation values. In addition, as you can see, the French translation uses a modulation technique: the situation is presented, as it were, from the opposite side. In the Russian phrase, the dog starts moving from somewhere, while in the French it approaches someone.
The category of the genus of the subject of motion is neutralized (dog- le chien) due to the fact that the sex differences of animals are not always updated in speech. In this situation, the category of gender in both Russian and French is of little significance. In the text, this category is quite clearly expressed by the form of the subject, agreed with the verb. Therefore, its duplication by the form of the verb can be considered as redundant. Of course, in both Russian and French, in some cases, verb forms duplicate the gender category expressed by the subject or restored from the context. in Russian and French such duplication is noted, in particular, in the singular forms of verbs that agree with the subject. The forms of French verbs do not duplicate the category of gender in the conjugation forms, these meanings are conveyed by separate forms. In a French utterance, the meaning of the movement and its stage is conveyed by the verb, and the meaning of the mode of movement is participial form another verb ramper, defining the state of the subject, in which the seme of movement is also duplicated.
The conducted experiment clearly shows that in order to achieve the equivalence of the translated text to the original one, it is sufficient to convey only half of the total set of elementary meanings. This proves the relativity of the very category of translation equivalence and determines the threshold beyond which one or another unit of orientation, as a unit of meaning of the source text, cannot turn into a unit of translation, i.e. be considered equivalently translated. In addition, this experiment, which can be continued on the material of other pairs of languages and statements of different length, shows that in translation there is an increase in the set of elementary meanings rather than their reduction. In Catford's example, the Russian translation, having lost one element from the original set (connection with the present), introduced three new ones (woman, on foot, completeness). In our example, where a Russian statement is compared with a French one, the translation turned out to be
such elements of meaning as the past tense (the action began before the moment of speech), the beginning of the action, the manner of the action (slowly).
On average, the translation achieves the preservation of half of the total seme composition of the system of meanings contained in one or another unit of meaning, but in some cases this number can be much less. This happens primarily if the translator uses adaptation - a technique that changes the very objective situation. It is natural to assume that if in translation one objective situation is replaced by another, then the seme composition of units describing these objective situations will be completely different.
Hello!
Any manager wants the technically competent specialists working for him to be also adequate, proactive and sensible - that is, they have such a magical thing as “common sense”. After all, no leader can know everything in the world, and exactly for this he needs people who know subject area deeper than himself.
So what is common sense, and who are these people who have it?
Being engaged in management for more than 10 years, I came to the conclusion that the phrase said by Jonas Ridderstrale “Hire for attitude, train for skills” is absolutely true and very accurately describes who we leaders want to see in our teams, projects and companies . This very attitude is the holy grail of employee management. And in a broader sense, and in general understanding, and who lives with us and next to us in our city, region and country.
Below is an illustration of the programmer's lack of common sense from an old joke:
The anecdote is funny, at the same time, in life, many of us often behave this way.
One more example:
I go to the hardware store for white paint. I go up to the sales assistant with the question “Where is the white paint? In which direction to look for it? And he, instead of just showing the direction and giving the number of the row with paint, asks a counter question “What will you paint?”, essentially asking “Why do you need paint?” Because it matters! It is important to him that I buy what he needs, and not just white paint. Because it can be different, and if you paint batteries or a ceiling, these are different paints with different compositions.
Exactly the same way we are perceived by the customer. For him, the code of our program is just “white paint”. Moreover, it is equally "white" in any of the applications and modules that we develop. But he doesn’t know the composition of this “paint”, and not only doesn’t know - he doesn’t even suspect that this composition can be different for different situations and tasks.
Perhaps you will call this approach "client-oriented" - client oriented approach. And maybe even connect it with motivation. And the most advanced will associate it with intrinsic motivation.
IMHO, all these terms are constituent components of common sense. Without them, common sense does not exist. And with them? Are these components sufficient (customer orientation, intrinsic motivation)? No. Not enough.
Imagine a classic fool. He can be very internally motivated and may really want to help the client - he is focused on him. That person at the right time and in the right sequence. Is this enough to say that a person has common sense? Obviously not.
We need to add one more ingredient to our cocktail - an understanding of the consequences. Some call it forecasting, some call it awareness of the situation and its consequences. I am for "understanding the consequences" of the actions we take or the decisions we make as leaders. Is that all now? Now OK? We already have three ingredients of common sense - customer orientation, intrinsic motivation and understanding the consequences.
Twist these three components on your tongue. Let's say you hire an employee who has them. Is everything enough for you?
For a person who knows how to think, any new information (new tile) must be integrated into his already existing picture of the world. And if the new information cannot be embedded in any way, then a thinking person will determine this information as potentially false. Potentially false only because he understands that his picture of the world may be wrong. He who does not know how to think - such thoughts are not even asked! And a smart person who knows how to think will either rebuild his picture of the world so that this information could be included in it, or know for sure and definitively that this information is false. This is .
This is the fifth and most important ingredient of common sense - the ability to consciously operate with a picture of the world (the ability to think)!
Without this skill, all four previous ones will not help, since we will make the wrong decisions based on incorrect information that contradicts common sense that do not fit with the real picture of the world. And then, having made such decisions, we will responsibly bring them to the end, focusing on the client, we will be internally motivated to do all this effectively, we will understand the consequences of our actions (in the wrong picture of the world, yeah), and we will be ready to bear responsibility for our actions and decisions .
But who needs this responsibility if we act and make our decisions in the wrong picture of the world?! Without this last fifth skill, our meaning will be just meaning. He will not be healthy.
Therefore, select your employees, friends, colleagues and associates with all five components of common sense:
- customer orientation
- intrinsic motivation
- understanding the consequences
- responsibility for their actions and decisions
- the ability to consciously operate with a picture of the world (the ability to think)
Good luck with your projects and your life!
SEMANTIC TRANSFORMATIONS
Semantic transformations are the most numerous and most diverse. The interlingual lexico-semantic asymmetry that determines these transformations leads to the fact that the translated text never happens and cannot be semantically identical to the original message. The question arises: what should be the semantic correspondence of the translated text to the original text in order to consider these texts equivalent? In order to try to resolve this issue, one should turn to the semantic model of translation, more precisely, to its variety, which is built on component analysis. The method of component analysis, used for the first time in the 50s. XX century, is based on the hypothesis that the meaning of each unit of the language consists of semantic components - Sem. The semes that make up the meaning of individual lexical units can be subdivided into archisemes, differential semes, and potential semes (virtuems) 1 . Archisemes reflect those features of the content of concepts that are characteristic of a number of concepts that are combined into classes. Yes, concepts to speak, to pronounce, to grumble, to squeak, to shout, to exclaim, to shout will be united by the archiseme human sound production;to bark, to meow, to crow, to crow and others - archiseme animal sound production. AT at the same time, all together they will be united by the archiseme sound production. The semantic hierarchy turns out to be extremely important for translation. It underlies translation operations based on the transition from more specific concepts to more general ones, and vice versa.
Differential semes concentrate in themselves those features of the content of a concept that distinguish it from others. Together, they form the core of the meaning of words. So, the Russian verb form crawled in addition to the archiseme of motion, referring it to other verbs of motion, it will contain the semes of the beginning (movement), mode of action (crouching with the body to the surface), masculine and singular of the subject of the action, past tense, characteristics of the action (slowly). In the general structure of the elementary meanings of this form, we can find signs inherent in the verb crawl in his name
form - infinitive and, accordingly, in any other (1 -
movement, 2 - crouching with the body to the surface, 3 - slowly), in the corresponding prefixed form - no-creeping (the beginning of the action), in the corresponding personal form (1 - masculine and 2 - singular of the subject of the action) in the corresponding aspectual-temporal form (the action has already begun, i.e. its beginning has happened). Among the differential semes inherent in the verb crawl in all forms, the seme stands out slowly. This seme belongs to the category of secondary, or potential, as it reflects a secondary sign of action. As V. G. Gak notes, potential semes play an important role in speech: the appearance of figurative meanings in words is associated with them. Accordingly, a variety of paths are built on them, including interlingual, translation.
The concept of the seme made it possible at one time to build a semantic model of translation, which clearly shows that in translation it can hardly be repeated, the semantic structure of the signs of the original speech work is cloned.
