A short article by Vinogradov on the main types of lexical meanings. AT
V.V. Vinogradov
MAIN TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A WORD
(Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. - M., 1977.- P. 162-189)
The problem of the meaning of a word, the problem of the semantic side of words and expressions, is essential for Marxist linguistics. The understanding of the volume, subject and tasks of semantics or semasiology in many respects depends on the correct solution of this problem. common system language sciences. The study of the patterns of development of the vocabulary of the language is also impossible without deep penetration into the essence historical changes word meanings. The study of entire groups, systems, series, categories of words and the laws of their semantic changes is increasingly becoming part of the practice of historical and comparative historical lexicology. Consequently, elucidation of the essence of the meaning of a word, analysis of qualitative changes in the structure of words - in their historical movement - is one of the main tasks of lexicology. The definition or interpretation of the meanings of words is the main goal of compiling dictionaries, a direct object of lexicography.
The study of the laws of development of the semantic side of words and expressions of a particular language in connection with the development of this language, in connection with the history of the corresponding people, should be an organic part of the general history. given language. In this little explored area of linguistics, Soviet linguists face many urgent problems and tasks. The most important of them are the creation of historical dictionaries of languages with ancient writing and the construction of descriptive, historical and comparative historical lexicologies of different languages. The beginning of movement in this direction is the compilation of accurate, adequate linguistic reality. explanatory dictionaries modern languages.
Acad. L.V. Shcherba in his "Experience general theory lexicography", speaking of the widespread lack of good historical dictionaries, noted: "Historical in the full sense of the term would be such a dictionary that would give the history of all words over a certain period of time, starting from one or another specific date or era, and would indicate not only the emergence of new words and new meanings, but also their death, as well as their modification ... The question is further complicated by the fact that the words of each language form a system ... and changes in their meanings are quite understandable only within such a system; therefore, the historical vocabulary must reflect the successive changes of the system as a whole. How to do this, however, is unknown, since the question itself seems to have not yet been raised to its full potential.
With this statement of a contemporary linguist, it is curious to compare the words of the writer early XIX in. THEM. Muravyov-Apostol, who talked about dictionaries - explanatory and historical: "All these explanatory dictionaries seem to me like arsenals, in which the darkness of ancient and new weapons hung on the walls in a systematic manner. Enter them, and at first sight it will seem to you an immense treasure. But when it comes to armament, you don’t know what and how to take up, because the weapon is familiar to you only from one inscription that hangs over it, and not from manual use.
One way to approach the solution difficult questions associated with the study of the word and its meaning, with the study of the laws of change in the meanings of words, is the clarification of different types or types lexical meanings words and ways or forms of their connection in the semantic structure of the word.
It is well known that a word is not only the name of an object or objects, but also an expression of a meaning, and sometimes an entire system of meanings. In the same meaning, the public understanding of various objects or phenomena, actions, qualities is generalized and combined [cf., for example: food, nutrition; product - products (in different meanings); jewel - jewels; sample, image; lead, go, fly, repay, etc.]. On the other hand, different words that differ from one another in their meanings or their shades can be applied to the same object as its names (for example: food, food, food, table).
Denoting a phenomenon, an object, the word at the same time conveys its connections and relations in a dynamic whole, in historical reality. It reflects the understanding of a "piece of reality" and its relationship to other elements of the same reality, as they were or are perceived by society, the people in a certain era, and at the same time with a wide possibility of later rethinking of the original meanings and shades. So, the verb to salt, in addition to the direct specific meaning "prepare with salt, put a lot of salt in something", still has in modern language figurative meaning "to harm, cause trouble". Most likely, this figurative meaning The verb to annoy arose on the basis of once-existing ideas about witchcraft. According to the superstitious notions of the past, the scattering of various objects with a slander could cause illness and damage. Persons crossing or touching enchanted objects were subjected to "corruption"; in order to harm and often used slanderous salt.
Between the series of objects, actions, qualities denoted by words, there are various interactions and relationships. An object named by a word may turn out to be a link of different functional series, different aspects of reality, included in the general broad picture of life. The word helps to comprehend and generalize these relationships. All this is reflected in the development of the meanings of the word in the language of a particular historical period.
So, the word ending is associated with the professional terminology of press workers. In typography, it still denotes a drawing, a graphic decoration at the end of a manuscript, book or at the end of a chapter, section. The word ending is formed from the adjective end or end with the suffix -ka (cf. colloquial canteen, cherry, postcard, etc.). This type of word formation has become especially productive in the Russian literary language since the 60s of the 19th century.
The word ending in Russian (cf. Polish koncowka and Czech koncovka) appeared no earlier than the last quarter of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century. this word expanded its meanings: it was transferred to the field of literary and musical terminology (the end of a poem, the end of a romance). The word ending began to be called the final part of a work. For example, in the book of the liberal critic A. A. Izmailov "The Obscuration of the Gods and New Idols" (Moscow, 1910): "Turgenev and Goncharov, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky brought the realistic Gogol and Pushkin story to the utmost perfection. Behind them is a line, a point, a final ending".
Thus, the formation and creation of a new concept or a new understanding of the subject is carried out on the basis of the existing language material. This understanding, embodied in the meaning of the word, becomes an element of the semantic structure of the given language as a whole. Whenever a new meaning is included in the lexical system of a language, it enters into connection and relationship with other elements of the complex and branched structure of the language. Only against the background of the lexico-semantic system of the language, only in connection with it, are the boundaries of the word defined as a complex and at the same time integral linguistic unit that combines a number of forms, meanings and uses.
When referring to a word only as a name, it is impossible to establish a fundamental difference between different meanings of the same word and between different homonymous words. So, in Iskra (St. Petersburg, 1859, No. 42), under a topical caricature of the editor of one magazine, the following dialogue was published: "I have been shooting in my head all day today. - It's your own fault why they brought so much game into it." Without understanding the semantic relations of the corresponding words in the lexical system of the Russian language, it is impossible to comprehend linguistically what is the point of this witticism, this pun; "shoots in the head" and "shoot game on the hunt" - different actions, but do the designations of these actions form different words, or do they enter into the system of meanings of the same word? How does the word game - the designation of nonsense, nonsense, nonsense - relate to game - the designation of wild birds, objects of shooting?
Proceeding from the objects of reality, from the nature of things, one would have to recognize the meaning of the word ridge: 1) "back, spine" (backbone, puff with one's spine) and 2) "a chain of mountains stretching in some direction" - different words, homonyms. Meanwhile, in Russian these are different meanings of the same word ridge. They correspond to different words in other languages, for example in French: 1) colonna vertebrale, epinedorsale, rachis; 2) dos, echine and 3) crete, chaune de montagnes.
Without penetrating deeply into the semantic foundations of this particular language system, it is impossible to establish the signs and norms of a constructive combination of meanings in the same word, ways of forming new words and meanings, it is impossible to distinguish homonyms from different meanings of one word. the semantic boundaries of a word can be very wide, and sometimes not quite definite. The semantic area of words (even many scientific terms) has border zones and numerous transitional shades.
There is a direct and close connection between the dictionary of science and the dictionary of everyday life. Any science begins with the results obtained by the thinking and speech of the people, and in its further development does not break away from vernacular. Indeed, even the so-called exact sciences still retain in their dictionaries terms taken from the common language (weight, work, force, heat, sound, light, body, reflection, etc.). Even more important is popular thinking and the terminology it created for the social and political sciences.
The meaning of a word is determined not only by its correspondence to the concept that is expressed with the help of this word (for example: movement, development, language, society, law, etc.); it depends on the properties of that part of speech, the grammatical category to which the word belongs, on the socially conscious and settled contexts of its use, on its specific lexical connections with other words, due to the laws of combination of verbal meanings inherent in this language, on the semantic correlation of the word with synonyms and in general with words close in meaning and shades, from expressive and stylistic coloring the words.
In a language system, the semantic essence of a word is not limited to its inherent meanings. The word for the most part contains indications of adjacent series of words and meanings. It is saturated with reflections of other parts of the language system, expressing attitudes towards other words that are correlative or related to its meanings. In the richness of such echoes lies the value of a successful name or artistic expression. These features of the semantics of the word - since the literary and artistic activity of A.S. Pushkin - were realized by our philologists and writers. So, for example, P.A. Pletnev wrote to Ya.K. Grot (September 29, 1845) about his lecture at the university: “I explained that there are no words in the language that are completely equivalent, because with the lexicon meaning, the idea of a century, a people, a place, a life comes to mind with every word. I succeeded in all this to clarify with a simple example - a beard and a beard. The first one draws Russia to the reader in the form of its peasant, merchant or priest. The second one transfers each of us to the time of the patriarchs (Jewish), to the life of Eastern peoples, etc., just because this word crashed in memory from church books. On this I founded an important doctrine about the skill of giving accurate colors to pictures in literary works ".
Later prof. A.V. Nikitenko (in his diary on January 26, 1864) remarked: “That expression is especially good, which, while accurately conveying a certain thought, at the same time makes you feel its relation to other thoughts, more or less close to it or distant, but which do not enter directly into the chain of concepts you expound. Pushkin's language is a striking example of the semantic diversity of the word and - at the same time - the diversity of its possible artistic applications.
The connection between the meaning of a word and the lexico-semantic system of the language is carried out through the internally combined various subject-semantic and expressive-synonymous word groups.
Due to the complexity of the semantic structure of the word, due to the diversity of its relationships and live interactions with other lexical links of the language system, it can be very difficult to distinguish and convey all the meanings and shades of the word even in a given period of language development, to present with fullness and vital concreteness the role of the word in speech communication and exchange of ideas between members of society.
The absence of a developed semantic theory of the word is reflected in the fact that we have not generalized and systematized observations on the qualitative originality of the meanings and forms of their connection, their internal association in words belonging to different grammatical classes. The question of the nature of correlations and interactions of lexical meanings with grammatical ones in various types of prepositions, conjunctions, part q and other categories of functional words cannot be considered sufficiently studied. The internal originality of lexical meanings, for example, a preposition in relation to the semantic properties of verbs, adjectives and other parts of speech, is not defined (cf., for example: a full bucket of water and a bucket of water; a house belonging to a grandmother and a house with a grandmother; a general accompanied by orderlies and a general with orderlies, a gate without locks and a gate without locks, etc.).
The idea was expressed that the semantic volume and ways of combining meanings are different in words belonging to different significant parts of speech. So, the semantic structure of the verb is wider than the semantic structure of the noun, and the range of its meanings is more mobile. For example, the verb to call in modern Russian serves as a designation for various actions associated with both ringing and ringing (cf. the ratio of the verb to whistle with the nouns whistle and whistle ok, the verb buzz - with a buzz and a beep; cf. the combination in the verb to erase the meanings, related to the nouns herb, poison and persecution). Even more flexible and varied are the meanings of qualitative adjectives and adverbs (such as light, easy, simple, simple, etc.).
The breadth of the phrasal links of a word also depends on its grammatical structure. Often the difference in the lexical meanings of a word is associated with its different grammatical forms. For example, the verb to get cold is used or impersonally with the meaning "to get colder" (the perfective form is to get colder): It was already completely dark and it began to get colder - or personally - in relation to living beings (moreover, in relation to people, always in combination with the verb to starve) in the meaning "chill, suffer from the cold" (cold and hungry). Wed Garshin in the story "Four Days": "Have I really abandoned everything dear, dear, walked here a thousand-mile hike, starved, cold, tormented by the heat ..."
Short description
The problem of the meaning of a word, the problem of the semantic side of words and expressions, is essential for Marxist linguistics. The understanding of the scope, subject and tasks of semantics or semasiology in the general system of the science of language largely depends on the correct solution of this problem. The study of the patterns of development of the vocabulary of a language is also impossible without a deep insight into the essence of the historical changes in the meanings of words. The study of entire groups, systems, series, categories of words and the laws of their semantic changes is increasingly becoming part of the practice of historical and comparative historical lexicology.
In this article, we will consider the types of lexical meanings of words and present their most famous classification created by V. V. Vinogradov.
What is lexical meaning?
As you know, a word has two meanings - grammatical and lexical. And if the grammatical meaning is abstract and inherent a large number words, the lexical is always individual.
It is customary to call the lexical meaning the correlation of objects or phenomena of reality fixed in the mind of a native speaker with a certain sound complex of a language unit. That is, the lexical meaning denotes the content inherent in a particular word.
Now we will analyze on the basis of which the types of lexical meanings of words are distinguished. And then consider one of the most popular classifications.
Lexical value types
The semantic correlation of various words of the Russian language makes it possible to identify various types of lexemes. To date, there are many systematizations of such values. But the classification proposed by V. V. Vinogradov in his article entitled "The main types of lexical meanings of words" is considered the most complete. We will analyze this typology further.
By correlation
By nomination (or correlation), it is customary to distinguish two meanings of a lexeme - direct and figurative.
Direct meaning, it is also called the main or main one, is a meaning that reflects the phenomenon of reality, real world. For example: the word "table" refers to a piece of furniture; "black" is the color of coal and soot; "boil" means to boil, seethe, evaporate from heating. Such semantics is permanent and is subject only to historical changes. For example: "table" in ancient times meant "reigning", "throne" and "capital".
The main types of lexical meanings of a word are always subdivided into smaller ones, which we proved in this paragraph, speaking of direct and figurative meanings.
Returning to the main theme, we can add that words in the direct meaning less than others depend on the context and other words. Therefore, it is believed that such meanings have the least syntagmatic coherence and the greatest paradigmatic conditionality.
Portable
The types of lexical meanings of words were identified on the basis of living Russian speech, in which language game, part of which is the use of words in figurative meanings.
Such meanings arise as a result of the transfer of the name of one object of reality to another on the basis of common features, similarity of functions, and so on.
Thus, the word got the opportunity to have several meanings. For example: "table" - 1) in the meaning of "piece of equipment" - "table of the machine"; 2) in the meaning of "food" - "get a room with a table"; 3) in the meaning of "department in the institution" - "round table".
The word “boil” also has a number of figurative meanings: 1) in the meaning of “manifestation to a high degree” - “work is in full swing”; 2) excessive manifestation of emotions - "boil with indignation."
Portable meanings are based on the convergence of two concepts with the help of different kind associations that are easily understood by native speakers. Very often, indirect meanings have great figurativeness: black thoughts, seething with indignation. These figurative phrases are quickly fixed in the language, and then fall into explanatory dictionaries.
Figurative meanings with pronounced figurativeness differ in their stability and reproducibility from metaphors invented by writers, publicists and poets, since the latter are strictly individual character.
However, very often figurative meanings lose their imagery for native speakers. For example, “handles of a sugar bowl”, “knee of a pipe”, “strike of a clock” are no longer perceived by us as figurative phrases. This phenomenon is called extinct imagery.
Types of lexical meanings of words by origin
Depending on the degree of semantic motivation (or by origin), the following are distinguished:
- Motivated words (secondary or derivative) are derived from derivational affixes and meanings of the word-derivative stem.
- Unmotivated words (primary or non-derivative) - they do not depend on the meaning of the morphemes that make up the word.
For example: the words “build”, “table”, “white” are unmotivated. The motivated words are “construction”, “desktop”, “whitewash”, since these words were formed from unmotivated ones, in addition, the primary source words help to understand the meaning of the newly formed lexemes. That is, "to whiten", derived from "white", means "to make white."
But not everything is so simple, the motivation of some words does not always manifest itself so clearly, as the language changes, and it is not always possible to find the historical root of the word. Nevertheless, if an etymological analysis is carried out, it is often possible to find an ancient connection between seemingly completely dissimilar words and explain their meanings. For example, after an etymological analysis, we learn that the words “feast”, “fat”, “cloth”, “window”, “cloud” come from “drink”, “live”, “twist”, “eye”, “drag” respectively. Therefore, it is not always possible for a non-specialist to distinguish an unmotivated word from a motivated one the first time.
Types of lexical meanings of words by compatibility
Depending on the lexical compatibility of meanings, words can be divided into:
- Free - are based on only subject-logical connections. For example: “drink” can only be combined with words that denote liquid (tea, water, lemonade, etc.), but can never be used with words like “running”, “beauty”, “night”. Thus, the combination of such words will be regulated by the subject compatibility or incompatibility of the concepts that they denote. That is, "freedom" in the compatibility of such words is very conditional.
- Non-free - such words are limited in their ability to lexically combine. Their use in speech depends both on the subject-logical factor and on the linguistic one. For example: the word "down" can be combined with the words "eyes", "look", "eyes", while these words cannot be correlated with other lexemes - they do not say "down your leg".
Non-free types of lexical meanings of words in Russian:
- Phraseologically related - are realized exclusively in stable (or phraseological) combinations. For example: a sworn enemy - a sworn friend is not used, unless it is the author's language game.
- Syntactically conditioned - is implemented only in those cases when the word is forced to perform an unusual function for it. For example, the words "hat", "oak", "log" become predicates, characterizing a person as narrow-minded, stupid, muddled, insensitive, lack of initiative. In fulfilling such a role, the word always acquires figurativeness and is classified as a type of figurative meanings.
Syntactically conditioned meanings also include those dictionary constructions that can be realized only under certain syntactic conditions. For example: "whirlwind" takes on a figurative meaning only in the form of a genus. n. - "whirlwind of events."
By function
Types of transfers of the lexical meaning of words can be distinguished depending on the nature of the functions performed:
- Nominative - the name comes from the word "nomination", and denotes the naming of objects, phenomena and their qualities.
- Expressive-semantic - in such words, the connotative (emotional-evaluative) becomes the predominant seme.
An example of a nominative word: " tall man"- this phrase informs the listener that the person who is given the characteristic is tall.
An example of an expressive-semantic word: in the same case as described above, the word "tall" is replaced by the word "lanky" - this is how a disapproving, negative assessment of this growth is added to the information about high growth. Thus, the word "lanky" is an expressive synonym for the word "tall".
By the nature of the connection
The main types of lexical meanings of Russian words, depending on the nature of the connection in the lexical system of some meanings with others:
- Correlative meanings are words that are opposed to each other on some basis: good - bad, far - close.
- Autonomous meanings are relatively independent words denoting specific objects: a chair, a flower, a theater.
- Deterministic meanings are words determined by the meaning of other words, as they are their expressive or stylistic variants: the word “nag” is determined by the word “horse”, “beautiful”, “magnificent” - “good”.
conclusions
Thus, we have listed the types of lexical meanings of words. Briefly, we can name the following aspects that formed the basis of our classification:
- Subject-conceptual connections of words or paradigmatic relations.
- Syntagmatic relations or the relation of words to each other.
- Derivational or word-forming connections of lexemes.
Thanks to the study of the classification of lexical meanings, one can better understand the semantic structure of words, understand in more detail the systemic relationships that have developed in the vocabulary of the modern language.
/ 4
4) The totality of the lexical meanings of words, considered from the point of view of their connections and derivatives.
The following types of lexical meanings (LZ) are distinguished:
1) main LZ;
2) derivative LZ;
3) direct LZ;
4) figurative lexical meaning.
"... A great delusion," says F. de Saussure, "is to look at a linguistic element simply as a combination of a certain sound with a certain concept. To define it in this way would mean isolating it from the system of which it is a part; this would lead to the false idea that it is possible to start with linguistic elements and build a system out of their sum, when in fact it is necessary, starting from the total whole, by analysis to reach the elements contained in it" (31). But in the language system, the sounds of speech are significant, meaningful. W. Humboldt pointed to this. True, “only in rare cases,” W. Humboldt said, “one can recognize a certain connection between the sounds of a language and its spirit. the state of the spirit of the people (Gemutbeschaffenheit)" (32). According to W. Humboldt, the connection of the sound form with the internal language laws reaches the highest limit in their penetration into each other (33).
the lexical meanings of the word are subsumed under grammatical categories. The word is an internal, constructive unity of lexical and grammatical meanings. The definition of the lexical meanings of a word already includes indications of the grammatical characteristics of the word. The grammatical forms and meanings of a word either collide or merge with its lexical meanings. This close connection, this deep interaction of lexical and grammatical forms and meanings, was emphasized in recent times all major linguists, especially Shukhardt (43), N.Ya. Marr (44), L.V. Shcherba (45) and A. Belich (46). The semantic contours of a word, the internal connection of its meanings, its semantic volume are determined by the grammatical structure of the language. Ed. Sapir subtly remarked: “In an analytic language, the sentence takes precedence, while the word is of less interest. In a synthetic language ... concepts are more densely grouped together, words are richer, but at the same time, there is a general tendency to limit the range of a particular meaning of an individual to a narrower framework. words" (47). It is clear that both the semantic volume of a word and the ways of combining meanings are different in words of different grammatical categories. Thus, the semantic structure of the verb is wider than that of the noun, and the range of its meanings is more mobile. The meanings of qualitative adjectives and adverbs are even more elastic. The breadth of the phrasal links of a word also depends on its grammatical structure.
5) Types of lexical meanings of words
1. Types of lexical meanings of words according to the nature of the connection of the word with objects, phenomena of reality (by the method of naming): direct and figurative.
2. Types of lexical meanings of words by origin: motivated and unmotivated.
3. Types of lexical meanings of words according to the compatibility of words with other words: free and not free
The type of lexical meaning of a word is determined by the aspect of its consideration: 1) how the phenomenon of reality is called; 2) the word in the naming (nomination) of its meaning is not motivated or is motivated; 3) how the word functions in the language - whether it is free or limited in its compatibility. In accordance with this, three types of lexical meaning of a word are distinguished.
1. By the nature of the connection of the word with objects, phenomena of reality (by the method of naming) distinguish direct and portable values. direct the meaning of the word directly indicates the object, feature, process, etc. and acts as the main meaning in the modern language. For example: bread – a food product made from flour.
portable the meaning of the word is due to associative links that unite one object, feature, process, etc. with another. For example: bread meaning the same as subsistence - figurative meaning in relation to meaning food product made from flour , but in turn, it is the original value for another portable value: bread as a means of subsistence, earnings.
2. By origin, lexical meanings are distinguished between motivated and unmotivated.
Unmotivated (primary) the meaning of the word is non-derivative for the modern Russian language (the word bread literally).
Motivated (secondary) the meaning of a word is derivative in a semantic (and/or derivational) relation. Motivated words have an internal form: they retain the semantic components of the motivating meaning in the motivated one. So, for example, the word bread in two figurative meanings has common semantic components: food, product, from flour, baked / baked .
3. According to the compatibility of words with other words, free and non-free lexical meanings are distinguished.
Free, direct, or nominative, such meanings are called that are realized in combination with many words. Words with free meanings can practically be combined with all words that express correlative concepts. So, for example, the word wood in meaning "made of wood" can be combined with many nouns: wooden house, wooden floor, wooden roof, wooden bed etc. But it cannot be combined with words denoting non-correlative concepts. Yes, combinations are not possible. wooden iron, wooden book etc., since such a relationship is impossible in reality.
Unlike free non-free lexical meanings appear only under certain conditions. Non-free values are divided by phraseologically related and syntactically conditioned. To phraseologically related include such lexical meanings that are combined with strictly defined words. For example, the word has a phraseologically related meaning turn away in meaning "prevent something, prevent" implemented only in combination with a small number of words, such as danger, trouble, misfortune, suffering, threat (to avert danger, avert misfortune etc.). The implementation of the considered meaning of the word is not allowed in combinations of the type avert joy, avert events. The words drag, prodigal, fraught can only be used in fixed phrases drag out a miserable existence, a prodigal son, fraught with consequences.
From the considered types of meanings (free and phraseologically related) differ syntactically determined values. The realization of values of this type is determined not by the connections of a word with certain words, but by its syntactic function. For example, the word a donkey in abusive meaning (about a stupid, stupid, stubborn person) can only be used as a predicate: For example, our head is perfecta donkey ! (I. Turgenev). The meanings of words are also syntactically determined. head, light, crow, hat etc., if they express an assessment of a person: From where, smart, are you delirious,head ?; sing, light don't be ashamed! (I. Krylov); Oh you,crow ! Etc.
The peculiarity of words with syntactically determined meanings lies in their expressive-emotional coloring of a positive or negative nature ( head, well done– a positive assessment and hat, donkey- negative). Syntactically conditioned meanings are always figurative, figurative.
Often the same word can have all three types of meanings. For example: He movedhat on the back of your head, put your hands in your pockets(E. Nikolaeva) - the free meaning of the word; Eka trouble! We'll come, send some article, and the casein Hat (F. Reshetnikov) - phraseologically related meaning; Are you even in the gamehat ! (P. Pavlenko) - a syntactically determined meaning.
In addition to these main types of lexical meanings, many words in the Russian language have shades of meanings that are closely related to one or another meaning, but still differ from it. For example: word scale has as its main direct meaning - "foam, sediment formed on the surface of a liquid as a result of boiling" and its shade: "solid sediment on the walls of boilers or other vessels in which something boils, evaporates". Despite the apparent semantic identity, these meanings differ from each other, but not so much as to be considered independent.
Thus, the selection of types of lexical meanings of words helps to realize the possibility of analyzing the semantics of the word from different points of view, to study the role of the word in the language system in more depth.
6) The paradigmatics of a language can be defined as a set and a system of variants of its units and categories allowed by the structure of the language - options from among which the author of speech at each step of the development of speech makes a choice of only one.
The syntagmatics of a language can be defined as a set and system of their combinational capabilities inherent in language units and categories of language and their implementation in the process of speech. Like paradigmatics, syntagmatics is characteristic of all levels language structure. But if syntagmatics and paradigmatics are two forms of functioning of all units of the language at all its levels, it follows that there are morphological syntagmatics and syntactic paradigmatics.
Between the units of the language there are paradigmatic, syntagmatic and hierarchical
relations.
Paradigmatic relations - unite language units into groups, categories, categories. On the
paradigmatic relations are based, for example, on the consonant system, the declension system,
synonymous line. When using language, paradigmatic relations allow one to choose
the desired unit, as well as form forms and words by analogy.
Syntagmatic rel. - rel. units, location linearly, for example, in the flow of speech. They are defined as
rel. horizontally. These include the laws of connection of word compatibility. (Syntagma-consecutive of two
or more lang. units connected opred. connection type.) Synth. rel. combine linguistic units into
their usual successively, they appear in three types 1) grammar laws. compatibility - for example, in Russian
you can't say "give me the phone book", adj. must have the same gender number form and
case. 2) the law of lexical compatibility - Wrong. say "temeno brown eyes". 3) laws
phonetic connections - The ability of a word to connect with other words based on its lexical meanings called
semantic valency.
Hierarchical relations - less complex units of lower levels are included in units of higher ones.
Rel.between heterogeneous elements of different levels lang.sist. their subordination to each other as private
and general, generic and specific, lower and higher.
Value types
The semantic side of the word is not something monolithic and homogeneous, but is a complex system of interdependent and interrelated meanings and uses that differ in the degree of stability and independence, in the nature of the concepts they express, in the form of implementation in the lexico-semantic system of the language.
The most striking opposition here is lexical and grammatical meanings, which form a close and integral unity in the main lexical unit - the word.
grammatical meaning - a generalized, abstract meaning inherent in a number of words, word forms, syntactic constructions and finding its own regular expression in the language. In the field of morphology, this common values words as parts of speech (for example, the meaning of objectivity in nouns, the procedural meaning in verbs). In the field of syntax, this is the meaning of predicativity, as well as various relations between the components of phrases and sentences as abstract grammatical patterns: the meaning of a semantic object, subject, one or another adverbial qualifier (local, temporal, causal, target, etc.). The grammatical meaning is more abstract and generalized than the lexical meaning, it combines words into large groups, such as parts of speech or lexico-grammatical classes.
Lexical meaning - the content of the word, reflecting in the mind and fixing in it the idea of an object, property, process, phenomenon, content that is peculiar only to this word and distinguishes it from other words of the language.
In linguistics, lexical meaning is compared with the philosophical category of a concept. However, the concept and lexical meaning do not match. The relationship between them is different in different respects: the meaning is wider than the concept, as it includes the evaluative and a number of other components; the meaning is already a concept in the sense that it includes only the distinguishing features of objects, while concepts embrace their deeper and more essential properties.
Also stands out lexico-grammatical meaning , which is common denominator all meanings of words belonging to the lexico-grammatical class of words. Based on this general characteristics they form groups. Words in which the degree of abstraction and generalization is very high can be lexical representatives of lexico-grammatical meanings and can replace any word of their class. They are called general terms. For example, the word matter is a general term for material nouns, the word group– for collective nouns, word person- for personal nouns.
The structure of the lexical meaning of the word
The lexical meaning of a word is a complex structure determined by common properties words as a sign: its semantics, pragmatics, syntactics.
In proper semantic sense in the structure of the lexical meaning of the word, two aspects are distinguished: significative and denotative.
Significat, as already noted, this is the conceptual content of the linguistic sign. From the epistemological point of view, the significat is a reflection in the human mind of the properties of the denotation.
Denotation a language unit is a set of objects of reality (things, properties, relationships, situations, states, processes, actions, etc.) that can be called a given unit. This use of the term "denotation" corresponds to what is called "the scope of the concept" in traditional logic.
Pragmatic aspect The lexical meaning of a word includes an emotional assessment and a variety of connotations due to the speaker's attitude to the object denoted by the sign.
Syntactic (systemic or differential) aspect, formed on the basis of the relation of a word to other words, is determined syntagmatically - by its connections with other meanings of linguistic units in a phrase and sentence, and paradigmatically - by its position within the corresponding group of words with which the given word is semantically connected (primarily, synonymous series) . This aspect is also called significance.
The above typology is consonant to some extent with the typology that arose as a result of cognitive approach to language. The division in it is carried out according to what structures of consciousness underlie them - cognitive reflecting a person's objective knowledge of the world around him, or pragmatic, carrying information about a person's subjective assessment of the phenomena surrounding him, his personal experiences. Within the framework of the cognitive approach to the meaning of a word, lexical meaning can combine both cognitive and pragmatic components or be limited to one of them. A significant number of words are pragmatically neutral, their meanings represent only the cognitive component of the content: water, take, green. In other words, both components are combined, and one of them may be dominant (for example, in the words upstart"upstart", monster"freak" dominates the pragmatic component, in words like coward"coward", informer"informant" dominates the cognitive component, but the type of people they call causes a certain assessment).
In general, lexical meaning is often defined as a combination of the conceptual core and pragmatic connotations.
The conceptual content of a word is expressed in its denotative meaning .It belongs to the sphere of thinking and understanding, generalizes and classifies our experience and names the objects in question. Performing a significative and communicative function words, the denotative meaning is present in every word and is considered a central factor in the functioning of language. The description of the denotative meaning or meanings is given in dictionaries, examples:
month– any of the twelve parts into which the year is divided;
savannah– treeless, grassy plain, in tropical and subtropical America and Eastern and Western Africa;
sausage- chopped up meat, etc. flavored and stuffed into a casing or tube of thin skin.
If the denotative meaning exists because of what the word points to, then connotative meaning is the pragmatic value that a word acquires through where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose, and in what context it is used or can be used. In other words, it is an emotional, evaluative or stylistic coloring of a linguistic unit of a usual (fixed in the language) or occasional character. In a broad sense, this is any component that complements the subject-conceptual (or denotative), as well as the grammatical content of a language unit and gives it an expressive function.
In structure connotative meaning stand out:
stylistic component;
emotional-evaluative component.
Stylistic component of connotation carries information about the place of the unit in the language system, reports on the type of speech sphere (official business, oratorical, poetic, scientific, everyday colloquial speech), for which this language unit is typical or about the source of speech in general view. The stylistic component signals the place of the lexical unit on the scale of aesthetic value and refers it to a certain category: bookish, poetic, official solemn words, term words, colloquial words, dialectisms, slangisms, jargonisms, vulgarisms.
A stylistic connotation is “a kind of label attached to a thing, a company label indicating the place and time of manufacture of the goods and its cost” (Skrebnev 1975: 21).
Stylistically neutral (stylistically unmarked) words can be used both in book and in colloquial speech, both in written and oral speech, in all forms and situations of communication, without causing stylistic dissonance.
Stylistically marked vocabulary is limited in its application - it can be assigned to certain situations of communication, it can be used mainly by separate groups of people united by a certain community. Here, lexical categories are distinguished, corresponding to the degrees of increased and reduced aesthetic value of the vocabulary. In terms of highlighting the stylistic component of connotation, the following series of words is interesting: parent, father, dad, daddy, pop, oldman, oldie, octogenarian, oldster.
Under the emotional-evaluative component of the connotation understood as the expression of the word emotions or feelings. It arises on the basis of the logical-objective content of words, but, having arisen, it is characterized by a tendency to displace it or strongly modify it.
A language unit can be associated with the expression of an emotion in several ways:
1. A language unit can directly express an emotion, but not convey it. These units include emotional interjections intended to express emotions, but not having a communicative orientation.
2. A language unit can express and convey the speaker's emotional attitude to any object or phenomenon. In such a linguistic unit, there is necessarily some characteristic of the subject, plus an emotional attitude towards it. Most these units are words that emotionally characterize persons, as well as their actions and behavior.
3. A language unit can evoke an emotion without conveying it. Here it is necessary to distinguish between the emotional connotation conveyed by the word and emotional reaction subject into words.
4. A language unit can communicate an emotion without causing it.
In the process of analysis, it is impossible to connect the emotional-evaluative component of the word with the truth or falsity of the use of the word with this component; the assessment of the word used may not correspond to the real situation.
The evaluative component is often accompanied by an emotional one, but their combination is not necessary. Also stands out rational (intellectual-logical) assessment , based on information about the properties objectively inherent in the referent. Rational assessment is part of the denotative component and is included in the subject of designation. For example, money grubber- derog. a person who is determined to gain money, often by dishonest means; sensible– reasonable, having or showing good sense;
disrepute– loss or lack of people’s good opinion, bad reputation; unfair– not just, reasonable or dishonest.
Emotional-evaluative information conveys the speaker's attitude to the subject of the statement and can be represented as a positive emotional assessment and its modifications (approval, affectionate attitude, admiration, etc.) and negative emotional assessment and its modifications (disapproval, neglect, contempt, rude and soft ridicule). Examples: bull- headed(reckless, reckless) brute(Cruel person), stinker(disgusting person) shark(sharper) topeacock(important) potatoes- crap(mouth), meathead(moron).
The speaker, using any evaluative word, is under the influence of two factors: the objective ideal norm established for various aspects of the subject in this society, and the subjective ideal norm, his personal idea of the normative features of this subject.
The emotional-evaluative component of connotation, which expresses the attitude of the subject of speech to the signified, is closely related to the stylistic component that characterizes the conditions speech activity, communicative situation, social and cultural information about the participants of the communicative act.
Evaluation, emotionality, stylistic reference, integrated in a specific lexical unit, create expressiveness , which is understood as the property of lexical units to create expressiveness of the narrative in order to increase the impressive impact on the listener (some authors consider expressiveness as an independent component of connotation along with emotional-evaluative and stylistic components). Only the way of expression, the form can be expressive/non-expressive. Expressiveness is not a special semantic category, it is a category of the plane of expression. Connotations are a means of creating expressiveness; they provide expressiveness of the speech use of a given lexical unit, marking it against the background of a neutral environment.
Some papers also consider pragmatic aspect of meaning – communicative component lexical meaning. Pragmatics studies the behavior of signs in real communication processes. Linguistic pragmatics does not have clear contours, it includes a set of questions related to the speaking subject - the addresser, the addressee, their interaction in communication, the situation of communication.
Due with the addressee studied:
Explicit and hidden goals of the statement, for example, the communication of some information or opinion, a question, an order, a request, advice, a promise, an apology, a greeting, a complaint, etc.;
Speech tactics and types of speech behavior;
Rules of conversation, subject to the so-called principle of cooperation, which recommends building verbal communication in accordance with the accepted purpose and direction of the conversation, for example, to report only true information and reasonable assessments, to make speech clear, unambiguous and consistent;
The setting of the speaker, or the pragmatic meaning of the statement: indirect meanings of the statement, allusions, allegory, blunt words, etc.;
The speaker's reference, i.e. the assignment of linguistic expressions to objects of reality, arising from the intentions of the speaker;
Pragmatic presuppositions: the speaker's assessment of the general fund of knowledge, specific awareness, interests, opinions and views, psychological state, character traits and ability to understand the addressee;
The attitude of the speaker to what he says:
b) introduction into the focus of interest of one of those persons about whom the speaker is talking, or empathy;
c) organization of the utterance in accordance with what is given the greatest importance in the message.
Due with the addressee studied:
Interpretation of speech, including rules for inferring indirect and hidden meanings from the direct meaning of the statement;
The impact of the statement on the addressee: expanding the awareness of the addressee, changes in emotional state, views and assessments of the addressee;
Types of speech response to the received stimulus (direct and indirect reactions, for example, ways to avoid a direct answer to a question).
Due with the relationship between the participants of communication studied:
Forms of verbal communication (informative dialogue, friendly conversation, dispute, quarrel);
Social and etiquette side of speech (forms of address, style of communication);
The ratio between the participants in communication in certain speech acts (compare the request and the order).
Due with the communication situation studied:
Interpretation of deictic signs ("here", "now", "this");
Influence speech situation on the topics and forms of communication (compare typical topics and forms of conversation at a party, at banquets, in hospitals, in the waiting rooms of doctors and lawyers).
Lexical value types
General characteristics of the morphological structure of the Russian language at the beginning of the historical period. Parts of speech in the Old Russian language of the late X-X Icenturies The main trends in the development of the morphological system of the Russian language. According to the "Historical Grammar" V.V. Ivanova
The system of parts of speech in the original system of the Old Russian language was generally the same as in the modern one. In it, the name and the verb were completely opposed to each other. In terms of content, they were opposed as a class of words denoting objects and their attributes, a class of words denoting an action or state. In terms of expression, they were opposed as words having the categories of gender, number and case, words having the categories of tense, aspect, mood, person and number. At the same time, the category of number common for the name and the verb in the names characterized their quantitative side; in verbs, the number forms were determined by the syntactic connection with the carrier
action or feature. Numerical forms of one name or verb formed the paradigm of one word. The verbal categories of tense, form, mood and person in terms of content denoted the relationship of an action or state to the moment of speech (present, past, future tense), to its completeness or incompleteness (perfect - imperfective form), to reality, convention or motivation (indicative, conditional and imperative moods), and in terms of expression they were characterized by forms of inflection or word formation.
Within the name, a noun and an adjective were opposed, but this opposition was less distinct than in modern language. The fact is that along with pronominal (or full) adjectives in the Old Russian language there were also nominal (or short) ones that changed in the same way as nouns. Although pronominal adjectives, as well as nominal ones, arose in the preliterate era, they nevertheless arose later than nominal ones, and originally there were only short adjectives that could act simultaneously as nouns without any change in form. In terms of content, nouns and adjectives were opposed as names of objects to names of features. In terms of expression, they were equally characterized by the categories of gender, number and case, but if for nouns these categories were independent, then for adjectives they were determined by a syntactic connection with nouns.
Within the name, pronouns were distinguished, denoting indications of a person or object and having specific features in grammatical categories; these features in the Old Russian language of this period of history had personal pronouns of the 1st and 2nd person (they had no category of gender) and reflexive (which had no categories of gender and number).
A feature of the Old Russian language compared to the modern one was the absence of numerals as a special part of speech, which is in modern Russian ( we are talking about cardinal numbers). The point is that if there is a language
words expressing numerical concepts, numerals were not distinguished into a special grammatical class with their own categories inherent only to them. The names of numbers up to four, according to their grammatical properties, were close to adjectives, and from five to nouns. The formation of numerals as a special part of speech took place in the historical period of the development of the Russian language, although in a relatively early era.
Finally, in the Old Russian language there were also adverbs, but the class of this part of speech in the 11th century. was limited, since the formation of adverbs in most cases occurred at a relatively late time. The foregoing does not mean that in the Old Russian language the composition
adverbs was limited both in terms of their meanings and in terms of the way they were formed. On the contrary, adverbs already in the original Old Russian morphological system could express various adverbial characteristics of the action (place, time, reason, purpose, etc.) and differ in structural features - the Old Russian language had its own specific suffixes that formed adverbs. However, along with
Meanwhile, over the course of the history of the language, the class of adverbs experienced a number of changes: some of them were lost, but most importantly, new adverbs arose, formed in new ways and, probably, on the basis of other parts of speech. These questions: how adverbs arose in the history of the Russian language, what parts of speech formed the basis of these adverbs, in what ways and by what means new adverbs were formed - these questions remain largely unresolved, controversial, debatable. Different scholars offer different solutions, but the problem of the history of the formation of Russian dialects still requires new research.
2. Lexical meaning of the word - it is a reflection in the word of the phenomena of reality (VV Vinogradov). LZS is fixed in the minds of speakers, correlated with the sound complex of a language unit with one or another phenomenon of reality, most words name objects, their features, quantity, actions, processes and act as full-fledged independent words, performing a nominative function in the language. The meaning of the word reflects only various signs, i.e. those with which you can distinguish objects from each other.
Lexical meaning structure:
Simeological aspect. Meaning as a reflection of linguistic reality in it as a sign.
Structural-semantic. Meaning as a semantic organization of the word.
Functional-style aspect. Meaning as a reflection of the sociolinguistic attitude to the word.
Denotation- the subject meaning of the word, denotes the volume (class) of serial (or unique) phenomena of reality and serves as the name of the subject correlation of the word. The denotation characterizes a class of homogeneous objects in the broad sense of the word (a table is a type of furniture), covers the scope of the concept.
Significat- reveals the essential features, phenomena of reality, constitutes the content of the concept.
Connotation- this is an additional meaning to the main lexical one. (Brother is the son of parents, in relation to other children of these parents; Brother - with tenderness, affection; Bro - ...). The connotation includes 4 aspects:
emotional;
expressive;
stylistic;
estimated.
In a word, all 4 aspects can be realized, and maybe one.
LEXICAL MEANING AND CONCEPTS.
Words in the language are divided into significant and non-significant.
Non-significant are particles, prepositions and conjunctions.
The object of lexicology is only significant words.
It is significant words that have a nominative function, i.e. A word is the smallest unit of language capable of isolating a single thought. Based on the definition that the word is a sound unit of human speech, denoted by the phenomena of reality, in their dissection, grammatically designed and equally understood by the number of people speaking the same language, it can be argued that the main function of the word is the function of naming.
All significant words have this function except for pronouns. Pronouns have a demonstrative function.
Each word correlates with certain concepts, it is this correlation that is usually called LZ. An important ability of the word is the ability to generalize, this is an important function of generalization. Summarizing, whole groups, classes are called. Concepts are formed in our minds under the influence of the surrounding world. Objects and phenomena are named according to the feature that distinguishes them from other objects.
A sign placed in the category of distinctive or differentiated is characteristic not only for specific objects, which is why a general differentiated sign performs the function of generalization.
It must be remembered that between the word, its meaning and concept, you cannot put an equal sign, i.e. the meaning of the word and the concept are not the same. A concept can be expressed by a combination of words. For example, Railway, Earth. One concept can be expressed in different words (synonyms) (hand - hand). One word can express several concepts. The meaning of a word can have additional features, the meaning is wider than concepts.
Comparison of various words and their meanings allows us to distinguish several types of meanings in the Russian language:
According to the method of nomination, direct and figurative meanings of words are distinguished. DIRECT - this is a meaning that directly correlates with the phenomena of objective reality: it does not depend on the context and on the nature of the properties with another word. PORTABLE - this is the meaning that arises as a result of the transfer of the name from one subject to another. Direct and figurative meanings are defined within one word. Different meanings of the same word are called lexico-semantic variants (LSV).
According to the degree of semantic motivation, motivated and unmotivated meanings are distinguished. UNMOTIVATED - these are meanings that are not determined by the meaning of morphemes in the composition of the word. MOTIVATED - these are the meanings that are derived from the meaning of the derivative stem and word-forming affixes. The degree of motivation of the same word may not be single.
If possible, lexical compatibility is divided into free and non-free. FREE - based on only subject-logical connections of words, but cannot be combined with such words as a stone. Lexical compatibility is called in scientific literature valency. There are monovalent words (limited combinations). Words with monovalent compatibility are called collocations. Collocations gravitate toward stability, but into the category of stable combinations, i.e. Phraseological units are not yet included. NOT FREE words are characterized handicapped, lexical compatibility, which in this case are also determined by subject matter.
3. Historical changes in the paradigm of names (the process of unification, the loss of the dual number, the relationship of full and short forms of adjectives). Principles of allocation of types of declension in antiquity. Unification of types of declension of nouns, reasons this process and result. Source gram Ivanov V.V.
The nouns of the Old Russian language in its original system were generally characterized by the same categories that are inherent in them in the modern language, that is, the categories of gender, number and case. However, only the first category, which determined the distribution of nouns into three genders - masculine, feminine and neuter, was in principle the same in the Old Russian language as it is now. As for the category of number, unlike the modern Russian language, in the Old Russian era, not two numbers were distinguished - the singular and the plural, but three numbers, because there was also a dual number. Finally, in addition to six case forms, i.e. nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental and local (modern prepositional) cases, there was also a vocative form, which, however, had special inflections not in all numbers and not for all nouns.
Throughout the development of the Russian language, various changes took place in the forms of expression of grammatical categories, gradually leading to the establishment of those forms that are observed in the modern language. However, the biggest changes in
the history of nouns underwent types of declension, which in ancient times had a different character compared to the modern Russian language.
In the Old Russian language, by the era of the beginning of writing, there was a multi-type declension, which was expressed in the fact that the same cases of nouns of different types of declension had different endings. In the early period of the Proto-Slavic language, each type of declension was characterized by the last sound of the stem, depending on which vowel or consonant the stem ended in (later the final sound moved to the ending, i.e., the morphemes were re-decomposed in favor of the ending).
1. Words with a stem on *o had a hard and soft (*jo and words like ots, where there was no *j, and the original soft consonant arose from a back lingual consonant after a front vowel in the third palatalization) varieties of declension. This type of declension included masculine and neuter words having in Im. n. respectively, the endings -ъ, -о after a hard consonant - a table, a village and -ь, -е after a soft consonant - a horse, a field, as well as masculine words - such as edges, robberies.
2. Words with a stem on *a had a hard and soft (*ja and words like maiden, where there was no *j, and the original soft consonant arose from the back lingual field of the front vowel as a result of the third palatalization) varieties of declension. This type of declension included a) feminine nouns having in Im. n. endings -a, -'a (water, earth), b) some masculine nouns in -a, -'a (servant, governor, young man), c) masculine nouns in -i (judge, helmsman), d) feminine nouns in -yni (knyagyns, slaves).
3. Words with a stem on *i included masculine and feminine words that have in Im. n. ending -b. Feminine nouns at the end of the stem could have both a semi-soft consonant (bone) and a primordial soft consonant (night), and masculine nouns before the end could only have a semi-soft consonant, and not a primordial soft consonant. It is the semi-soft consonant in Im. and V. cases and allows you to distinguish between masculine words with stems in *o and *i: cf. the word path, where the stem ends in a semi-soft consonant (if *j were present here, then *tj would give [h’] in Old Russian); cf. also a dove, where at the end of the stem there is a semi-soft consonant (if there was *j here, then *bj would give [bl ’]), therefore, these are words with a stem on *i.
4. Words with stems in *u included several masculine nouns ending in -ъ in Im. n. after a solid consonant: son, house, vyrkh, vol, floor ‘half’, ice, honey, possibly also the words row, gift, chin, fir and some others.
5. Nouns with stems in *u included several feminine words ending in -ы in Im. p .: father-in-law, circus, luby, etc.
6. Nouns with a stem on a consonant are divided into several groups depending on the consonant of the stem, which appears in indirect cases or cognates: a) with a stem on *n (m. R.) - day and root; b) with a base on * n (cf. R.) - im., Shm. (cf. name, seed); c) with a base on *s (cf. p.) - a miracle, heaven (cf. miracles, heavenly); *n (m. R.) - kamas, rhemes (cf. stone, belt), d) with a base on *r (f. R.) - mothers, daughters (cf. mothers, daughters); e) with a base on *t (compare) - tel., goat. (cf. in the proverb “Catch our calf and wolf”).
The history of nouns lies in the fact that instead of six types of declension, three types of declension were established (productive declensions became the basis of such an association). If initially the division of words into types of declension was formed on the basis of a semantic feature, then the beginning of a change in the types of declension was laid by the influence of the generic differentiation of words. In the Old Russian language, initially, words of different genders were included in many types of declensions. This can be represented as the following diagram:
Feminine words
* a - productive
*i - productive
*u - unproductive
to the consonant *r - unproductive.
Masculine words
*o - productive
*a - unproductive
*u - unproductive
*i - unproductive
to the consonant *n - unproductive.
neuter words
*o - productive
into consonant *n, *s, *t - unproductive
In the modern Russian literary language, there are three productive declensions - the first, second, third, which combined the following former types of declensions:
The I declension includes words with a former stem in *a (water, girl) and *u (letter); in II declension - with the former stem on *o (wolf, father, window, sea), *u (son), *i (guest) and consonant *n (stone), *s (miracle), *t (calf ); in III, declension - with the former base on *i (night), *u (church), *r (daughter).
In some cases, words did not immediately move from unproductive to productive declension, but had an intermediate stage in their history. So, the word day was originally in the declension to the consonant * n. This is the only masculine noun, in the word forms of which, not only in the literary language, but also in dialect speech, the old endings were retained for a long time (cf. R.–M. pad. day). This word very early acquires the form in –en and coincides in phonetic appearance and morphological structure with masculine words with the former stem in *i, and then, together with these words, it passed into the stem in *o.
When describing a particular noun, for each word form it is necessary to indicate whether it is original or new. In the original forms, the ending is preserved, which was originally in the Old Russian language or underwent a phonetic change (for example, the sound [m] coincided with [e]). New are called forms that have survived grammatical changes.
TYPES OF DECLINED NAMES OF NOUNS
TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A WORD
1. The semantic structure of the word, the lexical meaning of the word.
2. Types of lexical meanings of the word: subject-logical, contextual,
nominative, connotative.
Like other linguistic disciplines, stylistics deals with the lexical, phraseological, grammatical and phonetic data of the language. However, the essential difference between stylistics and other linguistic disciplines is that stylistics does not study individual linguistic units, but their stylistic function. Stylistics is interested in the expressive potential of these units and their interaction in the text to express thoughts and emotions. Stylistics interprets the relationship (opposition) between the contextual meaning of a word and its basic, denotative meaning. Accordingly, stylistics is primarily concerned with the study of connotative meaning.
The semantic structure of a word consists of its grammatical meaning(verb, noun, adjective) and its lexical meaning. Many stylistic means are based on the peculiar use of lexical meanings. The term "lexical meaning" of a word combines: 1) subject-logical meaning;
2) nominal; 3) connotative. There is one more thing - the contextual meaning, which is attached to the word by the context, i.e. individual use, but which is not included in the semantic structure of the word.
I. Subject-logical meaning- this is an expression by a word of a general concept about an object or phenomenon through one of the signs, which has become a "representative" of the whole concept. This type of meaning is called in the linguistic literature terms denotative, basic meaning, direct value or nominative meaning.
In the course of its historical development the word can acquire additional derivative subject-logical meanings. For example, heavy, the main subject-logical meaning of which is “heavy”, also has the meaning “strong” -
heavy rain; “thick” about matter - heavy cloth; “difficult” - heavy task, “high, big” - heavy price, etc. This is a phenomenon of polysemy (polysemy), when a word has, in addition to the main subject-logical meaning, a number of subject-logical meanings connected by a single semantic core and distinguished in a word by the nature of its use in the context. Thus, each polysemantic word has the main and derivative subject-logical meanings. Together they form the semantic (semantic) structure of the given word.
Portable (figurative) the meaning of the word, if it is widely used, is also considered as special case polysemy: Fox- "a cunning person."
The subject-logical meaning can change along with a change in the concept of an object or phenomenon. For example, the word deer denoted "an animal in general", later it was called "deer"; word citizen used to mean "city dweller", and then - "citizen", and the word clerk, which previously had only one meaning "priest", then consistently meant "scientist, literate, official, employee."
Subject-boolean values can be free or bound. Free- exist in a word regardless of the combination of this word with other words, e.g . room- room. Related- appear as derivatives of the main value only in certain combinations: move and make room for me (meaning - "place"), there is always room for improvement (meaning “opportunity”).
The subject-logical meanings of the word (basic, free and connected) represent a constant and stable semantic structure of the word in this stage development of the lexical system.
However, in the language there is a need to express a new concept and therefore either a new word appears, or the old one acquires a new meaning. If this new meaning is very close in content to the already established meaning of the given word, then it does not form a new meaning, but only informs a new one. shade values. Yes, the word collaborator("employee") after the 2nd World War took on the connotation of the meaning of "traitor" due to the fact that this word was used to refer to those who collaborated with the Nazi administration.
Shades of meaning- these are additional subject-logical meanings that are not yet fully entrenched in the vocabulary and are closely related to the main meaning. They are included in the semantic structure of the word.
At the same time, many words, due to special conditions of use, acquire meanings in the context that are not included in their semantic structure. These meanings are transitory and only possible in a given context. They're called contextual. E.g. at the door of each job(job – ‘office, institution’); the dawn of her new life seemed to break cold and gray (the word dawn gets a new metaphorical meaning ‘beginning’). Contextual meanings are more common in the style of artistic speech.
II. Name value. There is a significant difference between words like pen, distance, i.e. common nouns, on the one hand, and words like Harry, Thomas, London, i.e. proper names, on the other. In a common noun, in addition to private, separate also general concept about an object or phenomenon. AT own name only the notion of singularity is included. Hence the difference in functions. Calling common nouns designate, proper names are only called.
Nominative meanings have words that name one object, person or
geographical concept, defining it from a number of the same objects, persons, etc.
As a rule, nominative meanings are assigned to words as a result of a complex process of development of language and society.
Often the subject-logical meaning turns into a nominal one: Smith - from smith ("blacksmith"); Chester - from castra ( lat. "camp"); examples from the Russian language: Kuznetsov, Vera, Nadezhda, Lyubov, Pyatigorsk, Chelyabinsk (“chelyaba” in Bashkir “hole”).
There is also a reverse process. Words that have a nominal meaning can also acquire a subject-logical meaning: dunce ("stupid") - from Duns Scotus; hooligan - from Hooligane (the surname of one London family); boycott - on behalf of one's own Boycott;
quixotic ("quixotic") - from Don Quixote; sandwich - from Sandwich (the surname of the gambler); makintoch - from Makintosh (surname of the inventor).
III. connotative meaning. It is connected with the conditions and participants of communication. It includes emotional, evaluative, expressive and stylistic components of meaning. The connotation is optional. All of its components can act together or in different combinations or be absent altogether.
emotional connotation implements in the word the expression of emotions, sensations, subjective assessment. It can exist in the word independently, or it can exist along with the subject-logical meaning.
When comparing words with the same or similar subject-logical meaning, their emotional coloring is especially clearly manifested. For example, let's take a series of words: to pass away - to die - to join the silent majority - to kick the bucket. Here, all lexical units have the same subject-logical meaning (“to die”), at the same time, the first phrase expresses official solemnity, the second is emotionally neutral, the third conveys familiarity, the fourth is close to abuse.
Words denoting feelings, almost always, along with a subject-logical meaning, also carry an emotional meaning (love, anger, hatred, etc).
Some lexical units do not express a concept, but only have an emotional meaning. These are interjections: alas, oh, ah, gosh ("God!", "Damn it!"), gee ("that's it!", "That's great!", "Wow!", "Wow!"), pooh (indifference, mockery).
Defined formally structural elements also convey only emotional meaning. These are: - y, - ie (girlie, birdie, sonny), - let (ringlet, streamlet) with a diminutive value..
Some subjective-evaluative adjectives of broad semantics can approach interjections in their meanings: dreadful, terrible, wonderful, awful, nice, great, horrible, etc. For example, in the sentence “He classified him as a man of monstrous selfishness” the subject-logical meaning of the adjective monstrous is obscured by the emotional meaning of this word.
In addition to adjectives of broad semantics, words that tend to lose their subject-logical meaning and acquire a strong emotional meaning also include swear words, curses, oaths. : damn (“damn it”), bloody (“damned”), hell, upon my word (“honest word”), etc.
The context, as a rule, reveals both the denotative and the main types of connotative meaning, with the exception of stylistic connotations. The role of the context in the field of stylistic connotation is small, since the word has an absolute stylistic coloring, which is assigned to the word due to the frequent use of the word in a certain functional area, and already in the dictionary one can find the marks vulg., arch., sci., etc. A word has a stylistic connotation if it is associated with a certain functional style. The main function of the stylistic component of meaning- inform the reader about the scope of the word. Thus, the stylistic part of the lexical meaning of a word is additional information about the speech situation and the purpose of communication.
The absolute stylistic coloring of a word forms a series of stylistic synonyms in the language, namely, words (or phrases) that are close in meaning, but used in different styles of speech. For example:
Neutral enemy nonsense -
Book adversary bombast -
Official opponent - -
Poetic foe - -
Specialist. term - - legality
Spoken - rot, bosh, stuff fair play
Familiar - fiddlesticks square deal
Vulgar - wish-wash -
Series of stylistic oppositions can form not only separate words, but also separate syntactic constructions, for example.
Words in Russian have 2 meanings: lexical and grammatical. If the second type is abstract, then the first is individual. In this article, we present the main types of lexical meanings of a word.
The lexical meaning or, as it is sometimes called, the meaning of the word, shows how the sound shell of the word correlates with objects or phenomena of the world around us. It should be noted that it does not contain the whole complex of features characteristic of a particular object.
In contact with
Classmates
What is the lexical meaning of a word?
The meaning of the word reflects only signs that allow you to distinguish one object from another. Its center is the stem of the word.
All types of lexical meanings of a word can be divided into 5 groups depending on:
- correlations;
- origin;
- compatibility;
- functions;
- the nature of the connection.
This classification was proposed by the Soviet scientist Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov in the article "The main types of lexical meanings of the word" (1977). We will discuss this classification in more detail below.
Types by relation
From the nominative point of view (that is, by correlation), all meanings of the word are divided into direct and figurative. direct value is the main one. It is directly related to how one or another letter and sound form correlates with the concept that has developed in the minds of native speakers.
So, the word "cat" denotes a predatory animal of small size from the cat family, belonging to the order of mammals that exterminate rodents. A "knife" is a tool that is used for cutting; consists of blade and handle. adjective "green" denotes the color of the growing foliage.
Over time, the meaning of the word can change, obeying the currents characteristic of this or that time in the life of the people. So, back in the 18th century, the word "wife" was used in the sense of "woman." For the designation of "spouse" or "a woman who is married to a man" it began to be used much later. Similar changes occurred with the word "husband".
Figurative meaning words are derived from the main. With its help, one lexical unit is endowed with the properties of another on the basis of common or similar features. Thus, the adjective "dark" is used to describe a space that is immersed in darkness or in which there is no light.
But at the same time, this lexeme is quite often used in a figurative sense. Thus, the adjective "dark" can be used to describe something obscure (for example, manuscripts). It can also be used in relation to a person. In this context, the adjective "dark" would indicate that the person in question, uneducated or ignorant.
As a rule, the value transfer occurs according to one of the following signs:
As can be seen from the above examples, the figurative meanings that have developed in words are somehow connected with the main one. Unlike the author's metaphors, which are widely used in fiction, figurative lexical meanings are stable and are found in the language much more often.
It should be noted that in the Russian language there is often a phenomenon when figurative meanings lose their figurativeness. So, the combinations “teapot spout” or “teapot handle” have closely entered the Russian language and are familiar to its speakers.
Lexical meanings by origin
All lexical units existing in the language have their own etymology. However, upon careful consideration, one can notice that the meaning of some units is easily deduced, and in the case of others it is quite difficult to understand what this or that word means. Based on this difference, a second group of lexical meanings is distinguished - by origin.
From the point of view of origin, there are two types of values:
- Motivated;
- Unmotivated.
In the first case, we are talking about lexical units formed by adding affixes. The meaning of the word is derived from the meaning of the stem and affixes. In the second case, the meaning of the lexeme does not depend on the meaning of its individual components, that is, it is non-derivative.
So, the category of unmotivated includes the words: “running”, “red”. Their derivatives are motivated: “to run”, “escape”, “blush”. Knowing the meaning of the lexical units underlying them, we can easily deduce the meaning of derivatives. However, the meaning of motivated words is not always so easy to deduce. Sometimes an etymological analysis is required.
Lexical meanings depending on compatibility
Each language imposes certain restrictions on the use of lexical units. Some units can only be used in certain contexts. In this case, we are talking about the compatibility of lexical units. From the point of view of compatibility, two types of values are distinguished:
- free;
- not free.
In the first case, we are talking about units that can be freely combined with each other. However, this freedom cannot be absolute. She is very conditional. So, with the verb "open" such nouns as "door", "window", "lid" can be freely used. At the same time, the words “packaging” or “crime” cannot be used with him. Thus, the meaning of the lexeme "open" dictates to us the rules, according to which certain concepts may or may not be compatible with it.
Unlike free ones, the compatibility of units with a non-free value is severely limited. As a rule, such lexemes are part of phraseological units or are syntactically conditioned.
In the first case, the units are connected phraseological meaning. For example, in the words "play" and "nerves", taken separately, there is no semantic component "intentionally annoying". And only when these lexemes are combined in the phraseological unit “play on the nerves”, they acquire this meaning. The adjective "bosom" cannot be used together with the word "enemy" or "comrade". According to the norms of the Russian language, this adjective is combined only with the noun "friend".
Syntactically conditional meaning is acquired by a word only when it performs a function unusual for it in a sentence. So, a noun can sometimes act as a predicate in a sentence: “And you are a hat!”
Functional types of lexical values
Each lexical meaning carries a certain function. With the help of some units of language, we simply name objects or phenomena. Others we use to express some kind of assessment. There are two types of functional values:
- nominative;
- expressive-semantic.
The lexemes of the first type do not carry additional (evaluative) features. As an example, we can cite such language units as “look”, “man”, “drink”, “make noise”, etc.
The lexemes belonging to the second type, on the contrary, contain an evaluative feature. They are separate linguistic units, stand out in a separate dictionary entry and act as expressively colored synonyms for their neutral equivalents: “look” - “stare”, “drink” - “thump”.
Lexical meanings by the nature of the connection
Another important aspect of the meaning of a word is its relationship with other lexical units of the language. From this point of view, the following types of lexical meanings:
- correlative (lexemes that are opposed to each other on the basis of some feature: "big" - "small");
- autonomous (lexical units independent of each other: “hammer”, “saw”, “table”);
- determinatives (lexemes with an expressive meaning, determined by the meaning of other lexical units: “huge” and “hefty” are determinatives for the adjective “large”).
Given by V.V. Vinogradov, the classification quite fully reflects the system of lexical meanings in the Russian language. However, the scientist does not mention another equally important aspect. Every language has words that have more than one meaning. In this case, we are talking about single-valued and polysemantic words.
Single and multiple words
As mentioned above, all words can be divided into two large groups:
- unambiguous;
- polysemantic.
Unambiguous lexemes are used to refer to only one specific object or phenomenon. Often, the term "monosemantic" is used to refer to them. The category of unambiguous words includes:
However, there are not so many such lexemes in the Russian language. Polysemantic or polysemantic words are much more widespread.
It is important to note that the term "polysemy" should in no case be confused with "homonymy". The difference between these linguistic phenomena lies in the presence of a connection between the meanings of words.
For example, the word "escape" might mean:
- leaving the place of serving a sentence (imprisonment) at will, thanks to a well-developed plan or by chance.
- young plant stem with buds and leaves.
As you can see from this example, the given values are not related. Thus, we are talking about homonyms.
Let's give another example - "paper":
- material that is made from cellulose;
- document ( trans.).
Both meanings have the same semantic component, so this lexeme is multi-valued.
Where can you find the lexical meaning of a word?
In order to find out what a particular word means, you need to refer to the explanatory dictionary. They give the exact definition of the word. Turning to the explanatory dictionary, you can not only find out the meaning of the lexical unit of interest, but also find examples of its use. In addition, the description of the meaning of the word helps to understand the difference between synonyms. All vocabulary in the explanatory dictionary is arranged alphabetically.
Such dictionaries are usually intended for native speakers. However, foreigners studying Russian can also use them.
As an example, you can provide the following dictionaries:
- "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" - V.I. Dahl;
- "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" - S.I. Ozhegov;
- "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" - D.N. Ushakov;
- "Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology" - A.V. Superanskaya.
As mentioned above, in the explanatory dictionary you can find the lexical meanings of words in Russian and examples of their use. However, this is not all the information that this type of dictionaries provides. They also provide information about the grammatical and stylistic features of lexical units.
The problem of the meaning of a word, the problem of the semantic side of words and expressions, is extremely important for<...>linguistics. The understanding of the scope, subject and tasks of semantics or semasiology in the general system of the science of language largely depends on the correct solution of this problem. The study of the patterns of development of the vocabulary of a language is also impossible without a deep insight into the essence of the historical changes in the meanings of words.<...>Clarification of the essence of the meaning of a word, analysis of qualitative changes in the structure of the meanings of a word - in their historical movement - is one of the main tasks of lexicology. Definition or interpretation of the meanings of words - the main objective compiling dictionaries, a direct object of lexicography.
One of the ways to approach the solution of complex issues related to the study of the word and its meaning, with the study of the laws of changes in the meanings of words, is to clarify the different types and types of lexical meanings of the word and the ways or forms of their connection in the semantic structure of the word.
<...>The word is not only the name of an object or objects, but also an expression of a meaning, and sometimes an entire system of meanings. In the same meaning, the public understanding of various objects or phenomena, actions, qualities is generalized and combined.<...>
Between the series of objects, actions, qualities denoted by words, there are various interactions and relationships. An object named by a word may turn out to be a link of different functional series, different aspects of reality, included in the general broad picture of life. The word helps to comprehend and generalize these relationships. All this is reflected in the development of the meanings of the word in the language of a particular historical period.<...>
<...>The formation and creation of a new concept or a new understanding of the subject is carried out on the basis of the existing language material. This understanding, embodied in the meaning of the word, becomes an element of the semantic structure of the given language as a whole.
Whenever a new meaning is included in the lexical system of a language, it enters into connection and relationship with other elements of the complex and branched structure of the language. Only against the background of the lexico-semantic system of the language, only in connection with it, are the boundaries of the word defined as a complex and at the same time integral linguistic unit, combining a number of forms, meanings and uses.
When referring to a word only as a name, it is impossible to establish a fundamental difference between different meanings of the same word and between different homonymous words.
The meaning of a word is determined not only by its correspondence to the concept that is expressed with the help of this word<...>; it depends on the properties of that part of speech, that grammatical category, to which the word belongs, from socially conscious and settled contexts of its use, from its specific lexical connections with other words, due to the laws of combination of verbal meanings inherent in a given language, from the semantic correlation of this word with synonyms and, in general, with words that are close in meaning and shades, from the expressive and stylistic coloring of the word.
The absence of a developed semantic theory of the word is reflected in the fact that we have not generalized and systematized observations on the qualitative originality of the meanings and forms of their connection, their internal association in words belonging to different grammatical classes.<...>. The internal originality of lexical meanings, for example, a preposition in relation to the semantic properties of verbs, adjectives and other parts of speech is not defined.<...>
In order to catch the potential trends in the semantic development of words, it is advisable to explore the ways of their individual creative application and transformation.<...>
The study of the figurative use of the word is especially important for the full and wide reproduction of the history of the so-called phraseologically related meanings, for understanding their genesis. For example, the word claws in Russian literature XIX century was used as an image of predatory violence, tenacious and painful domination. It entailed a large group of words and phrases into the circle of figurative use. Claws are figuratively endowed in Russian fiction with illness, death, poverty, grief and sorrowful feelings.<...>, fanaticism, fanaticism, lies, debauchery and other negative, but spontaneous passions, emotions and phenomena.<...>
Thus, the semantic side of the language is part of its structure and determines its quality in the same way as the sound system of the language, its grammatical structure or vocabulary.
<...>The lexical meaning of a word is usually understood as its subject-material content, designed according to the laws of the grammar of a given language and being an element of the general semantic system of the dictionary of this language.
<...>Observations on the ways of combining different meanings in a word, as well as on the patterns of word usage, lead to the conclusion that not all meanings of words are homogeneous or of the same type, that there are qualitative differences in the structure different types lexical meanings.<...>
In the system of meanings expressed by the vocabulary of the language, it is easiest to single out direct, nominative meanings, as if directly aimed at “objects”, phenomena, actions and qualities of reality (including here and inner life person) and reflecting their public understanding. The nominative meaning of the word is the support and socially conscious foundation of all its other meanings and applications.
Basic nominative meanings of words<...>very stable. These meanings can be called free, although their freedom is conditioned socio-historically and subject-logically. The functioning of these meanings of words is usually not limited and not bound by the narrow framework of close phraseological combinations. Basically, the circle of use of the nominative meaning of the word, the circle of its connections corresponds to the connections and relations of the objects themselves, processes, phenomena of the real world.
A word can have several free meanings.<...>However, in relation to the main nominative meaning, all other meanings of this kind in the word are derivatives. This derivation of secondary nominative meanings must not be confused with metaphor and figurativeness. To the extent that these meanings are not separated from the main one, they are understood in relation to it and can be called nominative-derived meanings. Often they are narrower, closer, more specialized than the main nominative meaning of the word. Such, for example, is the nominative-derived meaning of the word drop - drops "liquid medicine taken according to the number of drops." It is characteristic of the plural forms - drops.<...>
Two or more free nominative meanings can be combined in one word only if one or two of them are derived from the main one (at least they are understood as such in a given period of language development). If there is no such connection between the meanings, then we are already dealing with two homonyms.<...>
<...>It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that free nominative meanings, with the exception of terminological, dissected meanings, can be basic or starting points of synonymic series.
Many words<...>there are stylistic synonyms in different layers or layers of vocabulary. A significant part of these synonyms is devoid of a direct, free nominative meaning. Such synonyms express their main meaning not directly, but through that semantically basic or supporting word, which is the base of the corresponding synonymous series and whose nominative meaning is directly directed to reality. For example, the verb to clothe is a literary and solemn synonym for the word to dress and is used primarily to express the meaning of dress in the appropriate stylistic context. Its main meaning is not free-nominative and not derivative-nominative, but expressive-stylistic, mediated by its relation to the verb to dress,<...>
<...>On the basis of the expressive-synonymous meaning, others can develop, but only phraseologically related meanings and uses of the word (cf .: vest with power, trust, authority and completely isolated: clothe with mystery).
<...>The peculiarities of the expressive-synonymous meanings of many words are determined by the nature and types of their relationships with the nominative meanings of the reference, initial words of the corresponding synonymous series. Meanwhile, the phraseologically related meanings of words cannot serve as a base, the basis of a synonymic series at all. <…>
The connection of meanings in the semantic structure of the word, the ways of combining words and meanings in speech are determined by the internal semantic laws of the development of the language system. Here lie the foundations and conditions for the historically established restrictions in the rules for linking the meanings of words and in the semantic spheres of their use. That is why not all the meanings of words in a living functioning lexical system are directly directed to the surrounding reality and directly reflect it.<...>Many meanings of words are closed in strictly defined phraseological contexts and are used for the exchange of thoughts in accordance with the historically established phraseological conditions for their use. Many words in the modern language system do not have direct nominative meanings at all. They exist only as part of a few phraseological combinations. Their meaning is extracted from these combinations most often by substitutions of synonyms.<...>
Thus, many words or individual meanings of many words<...>limited in their connections. These meanings can appear only in combination with strictly defined words, that is, in a narrow sphere of semantic relations.<...>
Phraseologically related meaning is devoid of a deep and stable conceptual center. The general subject-logical core does not appear in it as prominently as in a free meaning. It follows neither from the functions of the significant parts that make up the word (if this word is derivative), nor from the relationship of this word to reality. The meaning of this kind is “scattered”: it tends to be divided into a number of shades associated with individual phraseological combinations.
For example, the verb grow, although it is defined in explanatory dictionaries by the general formula "to reach some size in growth", is usually applied only in relation to hair, mustache, beard, nails. In other cases, it is said to grow up.
The difference between free and phraseologically related meanings of a word helps to more accurately and clearly present both the semantic boundaries and the semantic composition of the word, the system of all its meanings. The distinction between free and phraseologically related meanings is especially important for the theory and practice of lexicography.<...>
When mixing free and phraseologically related meanings, the substitution of the semantic characteristics of an individual word with a description of the general meaning of those phrases that include this word is inevitable.<...>
In explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, for example, in the dictionary, ed. D. N. Ushakov, such substitutions are constant.<...>
The number of phrases grouped around one or another related meaning of a word and forming a kind of closed phraseological series can be very different - depending on the semantic potential, on the material-semantic relief of this meaning, on the nature of its emphasis. In addition, the degree of tightness, isolation and fusion of phrases, the nature of figurativeness, and, as a result, the degree of lack of independence of the verbal components of phrases can also be very different.<...>
The extreme degree in a number of phraseological combinations is occupied by turns, including words with a single use. For example, the book word "advanced" occurs only in the expressions "advanced age", "advanced years" or "years".
In addition to qualitative differences between free meanings and meanings phraseologically connected, not free, in the lexical system of the Russian language, specific features of meanings, the implementation of which is syntactically conditioned, are very prominent.<...>
A peculiar type of meanings of a syntactically determined nature is formed in words, which are assigned a strictly defined function in the composition of a sentence. A functionally syntactically limited meaning differs qualitatively from all other types of meanings in that the syntactic properties of a word as a member of a sentence are here, as it were, included in its semantic characteristics. For example, cf. in colloquial speech, the word well done when expressing praise, approval in the function of the predicate: She is well done with us.<...>
<...>The predicative-characterizing meaning of a noun can be realized in the predicate or as part of the predicate, in circulation, in separate definition and application.
<...>The syntactically limited meaning of a word from a semantic point of view is often the result of a figurative-typical generalization of some social phenomenon, character, some personality traits and is a popular expression of their assessment, their characteristics.<...>
There are words that have only a functional-syntactic meaning. For example, the word feast for the eyes.<...>Since the 19th century the word feast for the eyes means everything that you can look at, what you can admire; in this meaning it is used only in the function of the predicate; the features of the noun in it are erased, the case forms are no longer characteristic of it.<...>
Functionally-syntactically limited meanings are characteristic mainly of nouns, adjectives (especially their short forms), as well as adverbs that pass under these conditions into the category of state.<...>
Much more complex<...>is the sphere of meanings of constructively organized or constructively conditioned. Many lexical meanings of words are inseparable from strictly defined forms of compatibility of these words with other words.<...>The fact is that the structure of some types of phrases is determined by the belonging of their grammatically dominant member to one or another semantic class or
category of words that have the same type of structure. For example, a small number of verbs of the internal state, emotional and volitional experience - to cry, complain, complain, and some others - usually express their meaning in combination with the preposition on and the accusative form of the noun denoting the object of the corresponding state or experience.
A constructively conditioned meaning is characterized by the subject-semantic incompleteness of its disclosure in the forms of the word itself: it is fully realized only in its characteristic syntactic construction- in combination with other words, the number and composition of which can be unlimited. The possible unlimitedness of connections with other words within the framework of a strictly defined syntactic construction is an essential feature of a constructively conditioned meaning. And by this sign it differs sharply from the meaning of phraseologically connected, for which isolation is typical, the limitation of possible combinations with other words.<...>
V.V. Vinogradov
MAIN TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANINGS OF A WORD
(Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. - M., 1977. - S. 162-189)
The problem of the meaning of a word, the problem of the semantic side of words and expressions, is essential for Marxist linguistics. The understanding of the scope, subject and tasks of semantics or semasiology in the general system of the science of language largely depends on the correct solution of this problem. The study of the patterns of development of the vocabulary of a language is also impossible without a deep insight into the essence of the historical changes in the meanings of words. The study of entire groups, systems, series, categories of words and the laws of their semantic changes is increasingly becoming part of the practice of historical and comparative historical lexicology. Consequently, elucidation of the essence of the meaning of a word, analysis of qualitative changes in the structure of words - in their historical movement - is one of the main tasks of lexicology. The definition or interpretation of the meanings of words is the main goal of compiling dictionaries, a direct object of lexicography.
The study of the laws of development of the semantic side of words and expressions of a particular language in connection with the development of this language, in connection with the history of the corresponding people, should be an organic part of the general history of this language. In this little explored area of linguistics, Soviet linguists face many urgent problems and tasks. The most important of them are the creation of historical dictionaries of languages with ancient writing and the construction of descriptive, historical and comparative-historical lexicologies of different languages. The beginning of movement in this direction is the compilation of accurate, adequate to the linguistic reality explanatory dictionaries of modern languages.
Acad. L.V. Shcherba, in his "Experience in the General Theory of Lexicography", speaking of the widespread lack of good historical dictionaries, noted: "Historical in the full sense of the term would be such a dictionary that would give the history of all words over a certain period of time, starting from one or another specific dates or epochs, and not only the emergence of new words and new meanings would be indicated, but also their death, as well as their modification ... The question is further complicated by the fact that the words of each language form a system ... and changes in their meanings are quite understandable only inside such a system; consequently, the historical dictionary should reflect the successive changes in the system as a whole. How to do this, however, is unknown, since the question itself seems to have not yet been raised in its entirety. "
With this statement of a contemporary linguist, it is curious to compare the words of the writer of the early 19th century. THEM. Muravyov-Apostol, who talked about dictionaries - explanatory and historical: "All these explanatory dictionaries seem to me like arsenals, in which the darkness of ancient and new weapons hung on the walls in a systematic manner. Enter them, and at first sight it will seem to you an immense treasure. But when it comes to weapons, you don’t know what and how to start, because the weapon is familiar to you only from one inscription that hangs over it, and not from manual use. "
One of the ways to approach the solution of complex issues related to the study of the word and its meaning, with the study of the laws of changes in the meanings of words, is to clarify the different types or types of lexical meanings of the word and the ways or forms of their connection in the semantic structure of the word.
It is well known that a word is not only the name of an object or objects, but also an expression of a meaning, and sometimes an entire system of meanings. In the same meaning, the public understanding of various objects or phenomena, actions, qualities is generalized and combined [cf., for example: food, nutrition; product - products (in different meanings); jewel - jewels; sample, image; lead, go, fly, repay, etc.]. On the other hand, different words that differ from one another in their meanings or their shades can be applied to the same object as its names (for example: food, food, food, table).
Denoting a phenomenon, an object, the word at the same time conveys its connections and relations in a dynamic whole, in historical reality. It reflects the understanding of a "piece of reality" and its relationship to other elements of the same reality, as they were or are perceived by society, the people in a certain era, and at the same time with a wide possibility of later rethinking of the original meanings and shades. So, the verb to salt, in addition to the direct specific meaning "to prepare with salt, put a lot of salt into something", still has a figurative meaning in modern language "to damage, cause trouble." Most likely, this figurative meaning of the verb to annoy arose on the basis of once-existing ideas about witchcraft. According to the superstitious notions of the past, the scattering of various objects with a slander could cause illness and damage. Persons crossing or touching enchanted objects were subjected to "corruption"; in order to harm and often used slanderous salt.
Between the series of objects, actions, qualities denoted by words, there are various interactions and relationships. An object named by a word may turn out to be a link of different functional series, different aspects of reality, included in the general broad picture of life. The word helps to comprehend and generalize these relationships. All this is reflected in the development of the meanings of the word in the language of a particular historical period.
So, the word ending is associated with the professional terminology of press workers. In typography, it still denotes a drawing, a graphic decoration at the end of a manuscript, book or at the end of a chapter, section. The word ending is formed from the adjective end or end using the suffix -ka (cf. colloquial canteen, cherry, postcard, etc.). This type of word formation has become especially productive in the Russian literary language since the 60s of the 19th century.
The word ending in Russian (cf. Polish koncowka and Czech koncovka) appeared no earlier than the last quarter of the 19th century. . At the beginning of the XX century. this word expanded its meanings: it was transferred to the field of literary and musical terminology (ending of a poem, ending of a romance). The word ending began to be called the final part of a work. For example, in the book of the liberal critic A. A. Izmailov "The Obscuration of the Gods and New Idols" (Moscow, 1910): "Turgenev and Goncharov, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky brought the realistic Gogol and Pushkin story to the utmost perfection. Behind them is a line, a point, a final ending".
Thus, the formation and creation of a new concept or a new understanding of the subject is carried out on the basis of the existing language material. This understanding, embodied in the meaning of the word, becomes an element of the semantic structure of the given language as a whole. Whenever a new meaning is included in the lexical system of a language, it enters into connection and relationship with other elements of the complex and branched structure of the language. Only against the background of the lexico-semantic system of the language, only in connection with it, are the boundaries of the word defined as a complex and at the same time integral linguistic unit that combines a number of forms, meanings and uses.
When referring to a word only as a name, it is impossible to establish a fundamental difference between different meanings of the same word and between different homonymous words. So, in Iskra (St. Petersburg, 1859, No. 42), under a topical caricature of the editor of one magazine, the following dialogue was published: "I have been shooting in my head all day today. - It's your own fault why they brought so much game into it." Without understanding the semantic relations of the corresponding words in the lexical system of the Russian language, it is impossible to comprehend linguistically what is the point of this witticism, this pun; "shooting in the head" and "shooting game on the hunt" are different actions, but do the designations of these actions form different words, or do they enter into the system of meanings of the same word? How does the word game - the designation of nonsense, nonsense, nonsense - relate to game - the designation of wild birds, objects of shooting?
Proceeding from the objects of reality, from the nature of things, one would have to recognize the meaning of the word ridge: 1) "back, spine" (spine, puff with one's spine) and 2) "a chain of mountains stretching in some direction" - in different words, homonyms . Meanwhile, in Russian these are different meanings of the same word ridge. They correspond to different words in other languages, for example in French: 1) colonna vertebrale, epine dorsale, rachis; 2) dos, echine and 3) crete, chaune de montagnes.
Without penetrating deeply into the semantic foundations of this particular language system, it is impossible to establish the signs and norms of a constructive combination of meanings in the same word, ways of forming new words and meanings, it is impossible to distinguish homonyms from different meanings of one word. the semantic boundaries of a word can be very wide, and sometimes not quite definite. The semantic area of words (even many scientific terms) has border zones and numerous transitional shades.
There is a direct and close connection between the dictionary of science and the dictionary of everyday life. Any science begins with the results obtained by the thinking and speech of the people, and in its further development does not break away from the people's language. After all, even the so-called exact sciences still keep in their dictionaries terms taken from the common language (weight, work, strength, heat, sound, star, body, reflection, etc.). Even more important is popular thinking and the terminology it created for the social and political sciences.
The meaning of a word is determined not only by its correspondence to the concept that is expressed with the help of this word (for example: movement, development, language, society, law, etc.); it depends on the properties of that part of speech, the grammatical category to which the word belongs, on the socially conscious and settled contexts of its use, on its specific lexical connections with other words, due to the laws of combination of verbal meanings inherent in this language, on the semantic correlation of the word with synonyms and in general with words close in meaning and shades, from the expressive and stylistic coloring of the word.
In a language system, the semantic essence of a word is not limited to its inherent meanings. The word for the most part contains indications of adjacent series of words and meanings. It is saturated with reflections of other parts of the language system, expressing attitudes towards other words that are correlative or related to its meanings. In the richness of such echoes lies the value of a successful name or artistic expression. These features of the semantics of the word - since the literary and artistic activity of A.S. Pushkin - were realized by our philologists and writers. So, for example, P.A. Pletnev wrote to Ya.K. Grot (September 29, 1845) about his lecture at the university: “I explained that there are no words in the language that are completely equivalent, because with the lexicon meaning, the idea of a century, a people, a place, a life comes to mind with every word. I succeeded in all this to clarify with a simple example - a beard and a beard. The first draws Russia to the reader in the form of its peasant, merchant or priest. The second takes each of us to the time of the patriarchs (Jewish), to the life of Eastern peoples, etc., just because this word crashed in memory from church books. On this I founded an important doctrine about the skill of giving accurate colors to pictures in literary works ".
Later prof. A.V. Nikitenko (in his diary on January 26, 1864) remarked: “That expression is especially good, which, while accurately conveying a certain thought, at the same time makes you feel its relation to other thoughts, more or less close to it or distant, but which do not enter directly into the chain of concepts you expound. Pushkin's language is a striking example of the semantic diversity of the word and - at the same time - the diversity of its possible artistic applications.
The connection of the meaning of a word with the lexical-semantic system of the language is carried out through the internally combined various subject-semantic and expressive-synonymous word groups.
Due to the complexity of the semantic structure of the word, due to the diversity of its relationships and live interactions with other lexical links of the language system, it can be very difficult to distinguish and convey all the meanings and shades of the word even in a given period of language development, to present with fullness and vital concreteness the role of the word in speech communication and exchange of ideas between members of society.
The absence of a developed semantic theory of the word is reflected in the fact that we have not generalized and systematized observations on the qualitative originality of the meanings and forms of their connection, their internal association in words belonging to different grammatical classes. The question of the nature of correlations and interactions of lexical meanings with grammatical ones in various types of prepositions, conjunctions, particles and other categories of functional words cannot be considered sufficiently studied. The internal originality of lexical meanings, for example, a preposition in relation to the semantic properties of verbs, adjectives and other parts of speech, is not defined (cf., for example: a full bucket of water and a bucket of water; a house belonging to a grandmother and a house with a grandmother; a general accompanied by orderlies and a general with orderlies, a gate without locks and a gate without locks, etc.).
The idea was expressed that the semantic volume and ways of combining meanings are different in words belonging to different significant parts of speech. So, the semantic structure of the verb is wider than the semantic structure of the noun, and the range of its meanings is more mobile. For example, the verb to call serves in modern Russian as a designation for various actions associated with both ringing and ringing (cf. the ratio of the verb to whistle with the nouns whistle and whistle, the verb buzz - with buzz and beep; cf. the combination in the verb to erase the meanings associated with nouns herb, poison and persecution). The meanings of qualitative adjectives and adverbs (such as light, easy, simple, simple, etc.) are even more elastic and varied.
The breadth of the phrasal links of a word also depends on its grammatical structure. Often the difference in the lexical meanings of a word is associated with its different grammatical forms. For example, the verb to get cold is used or impersonally with the meaning "to get colder" (the form of a completely different form is to get colder): It was already completely dark and it began to get colder - or personally - in relation to living beings (moreover, in relation to people, always in combination with the verb to starve) in the meaning "chill, suffer from the cold" (cold and hungry). Wed Garshin in the story "Four Days": Have I really abandoned everything sweet, dear, walked here a thousand-mile hike, starved, cold, tormented by the heat ... "
The boundaries between the word and the grammatical form of the word are mobile, slippery. For example, the question is complex and debatable whether it is possible to consider such verb varieties as forms of the same word, such as, for example, deserve with the accusative case (imperfect form to deserve: At this time he deserves the trust of his comrades) and deserve with the genitive case (in meaning "to be worthy of something": The project deserves attention; The book deserves all praise, etc.).
The Russian language, like other languages, has a number of words that are used only in one form. So, we have one form of the genitive plural - shchet. Should we consider it a form of the word shchi, parallel to the form of shchi, or see it as a special word? (cf. firewood - firewood, firewood). We also use one form of the dative plural: (by) muzzles. Should it be expressively associated with the word muzzle? The word mordas, apparently, once had a magnifying and contemptuous meaning "puffed cheek" (cf. bludgeon from the regional dubas).
Sometimes questions of this kind are easier to resolve. For example, some Soviet writers use the regional word Ugrev in the neuter gender, while others use the word Ugrev in the feminine gender. For example, in S. Golubov's story "The Ataman and the Field Marshal" we read: "The solar eel caressed the earth. The water ran in bright streams into the ravines ..." ("Valour". Tales and Stories). L. Leonov in "The Capture of Velikoshumsk": "A small grayish creature, shivering from the cold and drowsily squinting at the light, lay in the huge right palm of the tankman; with his left he covered him from a cold, so that the tail and legs remained under the acne of the wet ritual sleeve" . Obviously, these are forms of the same word. But, probably, refueling should be recognized in different words - the imperfective form to refuel (Fill the car with gasoline) and refuel in the meaning of "to be the boss" (The sister-in-law ran all the affairs in the house).
In order to catch the potential trends in the semantic development of words, it is advisable to explore the ways of their individual creative application and transformation, although an individual rethinking of a word that has not received social sanction usually does not change the meanings inherent in this word. Wed Marlinsky has an individual use of the word interjection: "All faces stretched out with exclamation marks; interjections wandered on all mouths" ("Mulla-Nur").
At the same time, the individual use of a word may be associated with the performance of characterological functions by it in the language of fiction. So, in Chekhov's play "Jubilee", the accountant Khirin subjects the word interjection to comic etymologization (interjection - "flickering"): "And then there's inflammation all over the body. Chills, fever, cough, legs ache and in the eyes of sorts ... interjections ".
The study of the ways and peculiarities of the individual use of a word must be carried out not only against the background of a system of its already established social meanings, but also against the background of its typical figurative applications. L.V. Shcherba, in his "Experience in the General Theory of Lexicography", listing the different meanings of the word needle, pointed out the need - in order to fill them - to outline the entire phraseological circle of the figurative use of this word: "No matter how we solve the question of the meaning of this word, the question of about the cases in which the needle can be used figuratively. Can it be said, for example, of the nails poked over the fence to impede thieves, that they stick out like needles? It seems to me that it is impossible; this, although unimportant in itself, nevertheless shows that in the dictionary all the traditional cases of the figurative use of a given word should be counted" .
The study of the figurative use of the word is especially important for the full and wide reproduction of the history of the so-called phraseologically related meanings, for understanding their genesis. For example, the word claws in Russian literature of the early 19th century. was used as an image of predatory violence, tenacious and painful domination. It entailed a large group of words and phrases into the circle of figurative use. Claws are figuratively endowed in Russian fiction with illness, death, poverty, melancholy, grief and sorrowful feelings (for example, bitter memories), fanaticism, fanaticism, lies, debauchery and other negative, but elemental passions, emotions and phenomena.
In this regard, the following phraseology develops: "... You will fall into the claws of Death, and without thinking about it!" (D. Davydov, Song); or in Marlinsky: "Poor, kind friend, - for this purpose did she (death - V.V.) let you out of her claws in order to kidnap you after good luck" ("Attacks"); or: "Death let its claws into him" ("Latnik"). In Gogol's "Nevsky Prospekt": "Debauchery spread its terrible claws over her"; in Lermontov's poem "Night": "Recollection dug its claws into me"; A. K. Tolstoy in the novel "Prince Silver": "Despair seized him like iron claws"; Turgenev in "Gooseberry": "No matter how happy he is, sooner or later life will show him its claws, trouble will strike - illness, poverty, loss."
On the basis of this phraseology, even if it were widely used outside of fiction and rhetorical journalism, the word claws could hardly have a figurative, phraseologically related meaning (claws of something - “the destructive power of something”, “the tormenting power of something something"). The image that arises on the basis of a subject-specific word, in the presence of a direct reference nominative meaning, is usually not erased or extinguished. The preservation of vivid imagery in this case is a symptom of the fact that the new meaning has not yet crystallized, has not received concentration in the very semantic structure of the word.
In other cases, based on the expansion of phraseological connections, the word may develop a new meaning. Such, for example, is the picture of the development of the meanings of the word codex in the Russian literary language of the 19th century. In the 1920s and 1940s, when the question of social and political convictions was particularly acute before the Russian advanced intelligentsia, the word code was transferred from legal terminology to the sphere of worldview, life morals and social behavior. The range of phraseological connections of this word is expanding. For example, in Baratynsky's "Gypsy": "The depraved, masterful rules The unfortunate code made up"; Goncharov: the code of affairs of the heart ("Ordinary History"), the code of friendship ("Frigate Pallada"); Dobrolyubov: a code of beliefs ("Tinsel"); in Saltykov-Shchedrin: a code of worldly wisdom ("Innocent Stories"); in Dostoevsky: a code of morality ("Winter Notes on Summer Impressions"), a code of decency, etc.
In connection with the expansion of the contexts of the use of the word codex, its phraseologically related meaning is gradually taking shape, which is defined in modern explanatory dictionaries as "a system, a set of norms for something - rules, habits, beliefs," etc.
Thus, the semantic side of the language is part of its structure and determines its quality in the same way as the sound side of the language, its grammatical structure or vocabulary.
The term "lexical" or, as they have recently begun to say, "the semantic meaning of a word" cannot be considered quite definite. The lexical meaning of a word is usually understood as its subject-material content, designed according to the laws of the grammar of a given language and being an element of the general semantic system of the dictionary of this language. The socially fixed content of a word can be homogeneous, unified, but it can represent an internally connected system of multidirectional reflections of different "pieces of reality", between which a semantic connection is established in the system of a given language. The differentiation and unification of these heterogeneous subject-semantic relations in the structure of the word is associated with very great difficulties. These difficulties make themselves felt in the incessant confusion of meanings and uses of the word, typical for explanatory dictionaries, in the vagueness of the boundaries between the meanings and shades of the meanings of the word, in constant disagreements or contradictions on the question of the number of meanings of the word and the correctness of their definition.
The lack of clarity in the definition of the term "lexical meaning of a word" has a very hard effect on the practice of vocabulary. In every explanatory dictionary, hundreds, if not thousands, of living meanings of words are omitted and many non-existent meanings are invented. Here are some illustrations from the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, ed. prof. D. N. Ushakova. In the word allegory, a special, independent meaning is highlighted: "Foggy, incomprehensible speech, absurdity (colloquial)". As the most illustrative illustration of it, the phrase is given: You do not breed allegories for me, but speak directly. But the word allegory in the popular language does not mean absurdity, although it can be used to characterize obscure, incomprehensible speech, for example, in the speech of Gogol's mayor from The Government Inspector: century would not have made sense. The word luggage has a meaning - "Erudition, stock of knowledge". And here the meaning is mixed with the use. Only in the appropriate context, and moreover, most often in combination with the definitions of intellectual, scientific, scientist, etc. the word baggage has this semantic connotation. The word bath is assigned a separate meaning: "Heat, steamy, heated air" (What a bath you have!). But even this is only a metaphorical application of the basic meaning of the word bath. In the adjective headless, a figurative meaning is found: "extremely absent-minded or forgetful." Illustration: Oh, I'm headless: I flooded the stove, but didn't open the pipe. I'm very headless.
Academic "Dictionary of Modern Russian literary language"opens in the word indifferent the meaning "no different; identical with everyone" and illustrates it with an example from Goncharov's Oblomov: "Ilya Ilyich's complexion was neither ruddy, nor swarthy, nor positively pale, but indifferent." all explanatory dictionaries of the modern Russian language.
It is interesting to observe the hesitation of our lexicographers in deciding whether the emerging and developing forms of the figurative, figurative use of the word can be considered a special meaning. So, the word toothless in its direct nominative meaning can be combined with the names of living beings, as well as with the words mouth, mouth and synonymous. But the word is used figuratively. Its figurative use is typified and phraseologically closed in a narrow circle of expressions: toothless criticism, toothless wit, toothless mockery, etc. Naturally, the question may arise whether we are dealing here with a non-free, phraseologically connected meaning, or only with a use that has not yet led to a socially established, generalized meaning.
In the academic dictionary of the Russian language, ed. Ya. K. Grot, in the dictionary of the Russian language, ed. D. N. Ushakov, in the one-volume book by S. I. Ozhegov, the presence of a special figurative meaning in this word is affirmed. But the definitions and interpretations of this meaning by different lexicographers are extremely contradictory. In the dictionary, ed. D. N. Ushakova, the figurative meaning of the word toothless is interpreted very subjectively: "Powerless, stupid, incapable of harming or offending" (toothless malice). In the dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov, the interpretation of this meaning is given a civil character: "devoid of sharpness, weak, unprincipled" (toothless criticism). In addition to the word unprincipled, which obviously does not go here, this interpretation reproduces the characteristics of the corresponding phraseology in the academic Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language, but there the figurative use of the word toothless is not rightfully recognized as a special independent meaning.
In the semantic structure of the word, as in other aspects of the language, there are elements of the new, elements of the living, developing, and elements of the old, elements of the dying, receding into the past. For example, the word ardent is being replaced by the synonym furious, formed from rage (the word rage itself arose as a derivative of an abstract noun to ardent).
In modern Russian, ardent - outside of folk poetic formulas (a candle to ardent wax) - is usually used in a limited range of phraseological combinations: an ardent admirer of something, an ardent supporter, an ardent lover of something in the sense: "passionate, zealously devoted to something anything, furious." Thus, ardent expresses only a general expressive characteristic of the degree of someone's enthusiasm for something. The former basic meanings of this word, although not in full, seem to have moved to the word furious - "indomitable, unrestrained by anything" (furious attacks), "full of rage" (furious anger). However, it is curious that in other parallel formations of the same type, completely different relationships develop between correlative words, for example: impudent and impudent, sweet and sweet, miserable and pitiful, evil and malicious, heavy and painful, glad and joyful, etc.