FUNCTIONAL - SEMANTIC FIELD - a system of multi-level means of a given language (morphological, syntactic, word-formation, lexical, as well as combined - lexical-syntactic, etc.), interacting on the basis of the commonality of their functions, based on definition. semantic categories (see Language category). F.-s. aspects of aspectuality, temporality, collateral, locativity, etc. are varieties of linguistic categories. F.-s. items include not only grammatical. units, classes and categories as initial systems, but also related to the same semantic. categories elements of their environment. The term "F.-s. etc.> is associated with the idea of ​​a grouping (ordered set) of interacting linguistic means and their systemic-structural organization (the parallel term “functional-semantic category > emphasizes the semantic-categorical aspect of the same subject of study). The concept of “F.-s. p.> is included in the system of concepts and terms of grammar, which studies linguistic units not only in the direction from form to meaning, but also from meaning to form.
The concept of field in grammar is developed in Sov. yae-enania since the 60-70s. 20th century (V. G. Admoni, M. M. Gukhman, E. V. Gulyga, E. I. Shendels, A. V. Bondarko, etc.). In plural relations, it is based on the theory of conceptual categories of I. I. Meshchaninov (see Conceptual Categories), on the teaching of V. V. Vinogradov about modality as a semantic. a category that has a mixed lexical and grammatical structure in languages ​​of different systems. character. Vinogradov identified a system of forms and types of expression for the category of modality in Russian. language in the field of syntax, morphology and technical vocabulary. elements, which, in the words of L.V. Shcherba, perform a “combatant” role.
At the basis of each F.-s. item lies defined. semantic category - that semantic. an invariant that unites heterogeneous linguistic means and determines their interaction. Yes, semantic. the invariant of aspectuality, which consists in conveying the nature of the course and distribution of actions (and other types of predicates) in time, is revealed in the system containing options that include such features as the relation of the action to the limit, faeo-ness (designation of the beginning, continuation and completion of the action) , perfection, i.e. designation of the relevance of the consequences of an action (the intersection of the fields of aspectuality and temporality). Every semantic option and within the framework of this F.-s. n. associated with the definition. means of formal expression. F.-s. p. is a two-sided (content-formal) unity that embraces the specific means of a given language with all the features of their form and content.
For the structure of F.-s. n. characterized by the relationship between center and periphery. The core (center) of the F.-s. p. is the unit of language that is most specialized for expressing a given semantic. categories. The concepts of center and periphery F.-s. etc. are connected with the more general idea of ​​center and periphery and the system of language (F. Danesh n
DR-)
F.-s. items are characterized by a variety of structural types. In addition to monocentric (strongly centered) fields based on grammar. categories (compare in Russian: aspectuality, temporality, objective modality, personality, collateral, comparativeness), there are polycentric (weakly centered) fields based on a certain set of various. linguistic means that do not form a single homogeneous system of forms. So, in Russian language to diff. options of this type include the fields of taxis, beingness, state, subjectivity, objectivity, certainty/uncertainty, quality, quantity, possessive™, locativity, causes, goals, conditions, concessions, consequences.
Fields in different languages, based on the same semantic. categories may differ significantly in their structure. So, if in Slavic languages ​​the center of the field of aspectuality is grammatical. category of the species, then in it. language, where there is no form as grammatical. categories, center, role play various. lexico-grammatical means of expressing the finiteness/infiniteness of action. If in “article” languages, e.g. in German, English, French, Bulgarian, the strongly centered field of definiteness/indeterminacy is based primarily on the system of article forms, then in languages ​​that do not have these forms, this field does not have a single grammatical structure. center. So, in Russian language V in this case there is a polycentric (weakly centered) F.-s. scattered (diffuse) structure (cf. such means as certain categories of pronouns and quantifiers, adjectives, the word “one” as an indicator of uncertainty, word order, phrasal intonation, etc.). Zones of intersection of fields are identified (i.e., areas of interaction of semantic elements of different fields, cf., for example, semantic complexes with aspectual-temporal, aspectual-modal elements, with the possible participation of elements of quality, etc.). F.-s. groups items in a given language form a system. Description of the system F.-s. p. of a particular language can be considered as one of the tasks of functional grammar.
In modern owls Yae-enaniya developed principles for isolating Ph.-s. etc., their systemic relationships (basic groupings of fields, their relationships), types and varieties, problems of identifying semantics are considered. dominants of the field, typological, compare, and diachronic. aspects of field theory. The theory of F.-s. is being developed. etc. in connection with the concepts of system and environment, etc.

Categories (see Language category). F.‑s. aspects of aspectuality, temporality, collateral, locativity, etc. are types of linguistic categories. F.‑s. items include not only grammatical units, classes and categories as source systems, but also elements of their environment belonging to the same semantic category. The term “F.‑s. n." is associated with the idea of ​​a grouping (ordered set) of interacting linguistic means and their systemic-structural organization (the parallel term “functional-semantic category” emphasizes the semantic-categorical aspect of the same subject of study). The concept of “F.‑s. n." is included in the system of concepts and terms of grammar, which studies linguistic units not only in the direction from form to meaning, but also from meaning to form.

The concept of field in grammar has been developed in Soviet linguistics since the 60-70s. 20th century (V. G. Admoni, M. M. Gukhman, E. V. Gulyga, E. I. Shendels, A. V. Bondarko and others). In many respects, it is based on the theory of conceptual categories of I. I. Meshchaninov (see Conceptual Categories), on the teaching of V. V. Vinogradov about modality as a semantic category that has a mixed lexical-grammatical character in languages ​​of different systems. Vinogradov identified a system of forms and types of expression of the category of modality in the Russian language in the sphere of syntax, morphology and those lexical elements that, in the words of L. V. Shcherba, perform a “combat” role.

At the heart of every F.‑s. lies a certain semantic category - that semantic invariant that unites heterogeneous linguistic means and determines their interaction. Thus, the semantic invariant of aspectuality, which consists in conveying the nature of the course and distribution of actions (and other types of predicates) in time, is revealed in a system of meaningful options, including such features as the relation of an action to a limit, phase (designation of the beginning, continuation and completion of an action), perfection, i.e. designation of the relevance of the consequences of an action (the intersection of the fields of aspectuality and temporality). Each semantic variant within a given F.‑s. etc. is associated with certain means of formal expression. F.‑s. p. is a two-sided (content-formal) unity, covering specific means of a given language with all the features of their form and content.

For the structure of F.‑s. n. characterized by the relationship between center and periphery. The core (center) of the F.‑s. p. is the unit of language that is most specialized for expressing a given semantic category. The concepts of center and periphery F.‑s. etc. are associated with the more general idea of ​​center and periphery in the language system (F. Danesh and others).

F.‑s. items are characterized by a variety of structural types. In addition to monocentric (strongly centered) fields based on grammatical categories (cf. in Russian, aspectuality, temporality, objective modality, personality, collateral, comparative), there are polycentric (weakly centered) fields based on a certain set of different linguistic means that are not form a single homogeneous system of forms. Thus, in the Russian language, various variants of this type include the fields of taxis, beingness, state, subjectivity, objectivity, certainty/​uncertainty, quality, quantity, possessiveness, locativity, causes, goals, conditions, concessions, consequences.

Fields in different languages, based on the same semantic category, can differ significantly in their structure. So, if in Slavic languages ​​the center of the aspectuality field is the grammatical category of aspect, then in German, where there is no aspect as a grammatical category, central role play various lexical and grammatical means of expressing the finiteness/​infinity of an action. If in “article” languages, for example in German, English, French, Bulgarian, the strongly centered field of definiteness/indeterminacy is based primarily on the system of article forms, then in languages ​​that do not have these forms, this field does not have a single grammatical center. So, in the Russian language in this case there is a polycentric (weakly centered) F.‑s. scattered (diffuse) structure (cf. such means as some categories of pronouns and quantitative adjectives, the word “one” as an indicator of uncertainty, word order, phrasal intonation, etc.). Zones of intersection of fields are identified (i.e., areas of interaction of semantic elements of different fields, cf., for example, semantic complexes with aspectual-temporal, aspectual-modal elements, with the possible participation of elements of quality, etc.). Groups F.‑s. items in a given language form a system. Description of the system F.‑s. p. of a particular language can be considered as one of the tasks of functional grammar.

In modern Soviet linguistics, principles for identifying f.‑s. are being developed. etc., their systemic relationships (main groupings of fields, their interrelations), types and varieties, problems of identifying semantic dominants of a field, typological, comparative and diachronic aspects of field theory are considered. The theory of F.‑s. is being developed. etc. in connection with the concepts of system and environment, etc.

• Gukhman M. M., Grammatical category and structure of paradigms, in the book: Studies on the general theory of grammar, M., 1968;
• Gulyga E.V., Schendels E.I., Grammatical-lexical fields in modern German, M., 1969;
• Bondarko A.V., Grammatical category and context, Leningrad, 1971;
• his, Theory of morphological categories, Leningrad, 1976;
• Vinogradov V.V., On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language, in his book: Selected works. Studies on Russian grammar, M., 1975;
• Maslov Yu. S., On the foundations of comparative aspectology, in the book: Questions of comparative aspectology, L., 1978;
• Danes F., The relation of center and periphery as a language universal, in the book: Travaux linguistique de Prague, t. 2. Les problèmes du center et de la périphérie du système de la langue, Prague, 1966;
• Grammatisch-semantische Felder der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart, hrsg. von K.‑E. Sommerfeldt und G. Starke, Lpz., 1984;
• see also the literature under the article Functional grammar.

FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC ANALYSIS AS THE BASIS OF SYSTEMIC STUDY OF LANGUAGE UNITS. FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC CATEGORY OF COMPARISON

Krylova Maria Nikolaevna
Azov-Black Sea State Agricultural Engineering Academy
candidate philological sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Professional Pedagogy and Foreign Languages

FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC ANALYSIS AS A BASIS FOR SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH OF LANGUAGE UNITS. FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC CATEGORY OF COMPARISON

Krylova Maria Nikolaevna
Azov-Black Sea State Agroengineering Academy
PhD in Philological Science, Assistant Professor of the Professional Pedagogy and Foreign Languages ​​Department

Bibliographic link to the article:
Krylova M.N. Functional-semantic analysis as the basis for a systematic study of linguistic units. Functional-semantic category of comparison // Humanitarian scientific research. 2013. No. 9 [Electronic resource]..02.2019).

In research conducted by modern linguists great value has a functional approach to linguistic facts and phenomena as “an approach in which a certain general meaning is recognized as the starting point of the study, and then various multi-level linguistic means are established that serve to express this general meaning.” This approach follows from language research in the vein of functional linguistics.

For functional linguistics, the main characteristic is attention to the functioning of language as a means of communication. It emerged as one of the industries structural linguistics in the 50-60s of the twentieth century. The advantage of the functional-system approach is the ability to study each phenomenon of language from the point of view of both its internal structure and its functioning. Language is studied in specific situation, in action, in the close connection of various linguistic phenomena. M.G. convincingly speaks about the need for researchers to turn to the functional side of language. Petrosyan: “The functional approach...allows us to study an object from the point of view of internal structure, and functioning, its connections with environment... Provides an opportunity to study language in its specific implementation, in action, to explore linguistic means of conveying extralinguistic situations ... Meets natural conditions verbal communication“when various linguistic means are used in synthesis, in their inextricable connection.”

The functional-semantic approach and, accordingly, the concept of a functional-semantic field (FSF) goes back to the analysis of language as a system that is a complex mechanism, which was theoretically proven by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure. Currently, the systematic nature of the language is recognized by both Russian and foreign linguists.

In foreign linguistics, field theory was studied by German scientists J. Trier and W. Porzig. Studying mainly lexical material, these scientists developed a theory of lexical fields built on paradigmatic (J. Trier) and syntagmatic (W. Porzig) principles.

Domestic linguists (V.G. Admoni, I.P. Ivanova, E.V. Gulyga, M.M. Gukhman, G.A. Zolotova, etc.) have done a lot to develop functional linguistics and field theory. V.G. Admoni attached great importance to the systemic perception of linguistic phenomena: “A language, taken in the fullness of its existence, represents a complex, organically interconnected set of diverse units.” Particularly important are the studies of A.V. Bondarko, who substantiated the principles of functional grammar, proposed the concept of a functional-semantic field and the typology of FSP in the Russian language. A.V. Bondarko formulated the tasks of functional grammar as “the development of the dynamic aspect of the functioning grammatical units in interaction with elements of different levels of language involved in expressing the meaning of an utterance." He justified the functional approach to describing groupings of multi-level units: “... The dominant principle is the need to convey meaning, for this purpose means of different levels are used, organized on a semantic basis.” Functional grammar and the concept of the morphological field as a subsystem in the functional-semantic field were developed by I.P. Ivanova: “In each part of speech there are units that fully possess all the characteristics of a given part of speech; this is, so to speak, its core. But there are also units that do not have all the characteristics of a given part of speech, although they belong to it. The field, therefore, includes central and peripheral elements; it is heterogeneous in composition."

E.V. Gulyga proposed another name for FSP - grammatical-lexical: “Various means of the grammatical and lexical level, designed to express and name general meanings, are interconnected not by random relationships, but by relationships that allow us to establish certain patterns. The set of interacting means forms a system - a grammatical-lexical field." The term that was proposed by E.V. Gulyga, E.I. Schendels, did not gain a foothold in linguistics, but the field features they formulated are relevant at the present stage of development of linguistics.

In Russian linguistics, the concept of the field structure of phenomena in the grammar of a language by V.G. Admoni, who identified a center (core, core) and periphery in the structure of the field. This idea was developed by many linguists, for example, M.M. Gukhman writes: “The field includes hierarchically unequal components: in addition to the units that form its core and occupy a central position, it covers various types of formations located on the periphery, more or less close to the core that forms this field.” A.V. Bondarko notes: “The core (center) of the FSP is the unit of language that is most specialized for expressing a given semantic category.” The center is characterized by the best concentration of all features characteristic of a given linguistic unit. In peripheral units, the phenomenon of the absence of one or more signs is noted.

The structural typology of the FSP (according to A.V. Bondarko) is as follows:

1. Monocentric fields (strongly centered) fields that rely on a strong center – grammatical category. In the Russian language these are aspectuality, temporality, modality, collateral, and comparativeness.

2. Polycentric fields (weakly centered), without strong center. In Russian, this is the field of taxis, beingness, state, subjectivity, objectivity, etc.

The consideration of linguistic units in the form of a field is called the field approach. Yu.N. Vlasova, A.Ya. Zagoruiko write: “Initially it was used at the lexical level to study semantics lexical units. Subsequently, the concept of field expanded significantly; it began to be used in relation to units of a different level, primarily grammatical.”

IN modern linguistics considerable experience has been accumulated in the complex analysis of the composition of various functional semantic categories (FSK), or fields. L.A. Brusenskaya examined the Russian category of number in functional and semantic aspects (1994); A.G. Narushevich described the category of animate-inanimate (2001); M.Yu. Romenskaya analyzed the FSP of the ban in modern Russian (2002); E.Yu. Dolgova considers the category of impersonality of the Russian language, the features of its functioning (2008). A great contribution to the description of the FSK of various semantics was made by the team of authors of the textbook “Modern Russian Language: Communicative and Functional Aspect” (2000). In this manual G.F. Gavrilova analyzes FSK intensity (in a complex sentence) and imperativeness; BUT. Grigorieva – FSK modality and personality, L.V. Marchenko – category of quality; T.L. Pavlenko – FSK intensity; A.F. Panteleev – categories of temporality and taxis, etc.

Works have appeared in which a certain FSK is analyzed based on the language of a specific author or work: ; ; individual linguistic components of a particular category, for example, adverbs of measure and degree as an expression of the category of gradation: etc.

Of interest are the works whose authors compare the FSP and the means of their expression in different languages. E.V. Korneva considers the semantic category of reflexivity from the standpoint of the theory of functional-semantic fields, reveals the national specificity of reflexivity in the Russian and German languages. V.V. Beskrovnaya compares the FSP of locativity in Russian and English, citing the fact that “a comparative approach to language phenomena allows us to understand them more deeply and to identify patterns of their use in speech.”

The concepts of FGC and FSP are being developed and clarified. For example, S.G. Agapova uses the term “functional-pragmatic field”, understanding it as the implementation of one or another field in an utterance, depending on the principles and rules of speech behavior accepted in society.

In this situation, the development of FSK comparison (comparativeness) turns out to be timely and logical, since, according to M.I. Cheremisina, “if you look at the category of comparison from the point of view of classical syntax, it will inevitably appear as a motley variety syntactic forms, united only by functional commonality. They all express a certain general syntactic meaning, which is intuitively grasped and evaluated as a “comparison.”

On the linguistic basis of the modern German language, FSP comparativity was described by E.V. Gulyga, E.I. Schendels, establishing the constituents of the field, semantic microfields, and recognizing the degree of comparison of adjectives and adverbs as a dominant. They also comprehended the functions of comparison: “It would be wrong to believe that the function of comparison is purely stylistic. By comparing objects with each other according to their qualities, establishing their similarities with each other, we reveal more deeply the phenomena of objective reality.”

Attempts to describe the functional field of comparison using the material of the Russian language were made in the works of Yu.N. Vlasova, M.I. Konyushkevich, O.V. Kravets, A.V. Nikolaeva, E.M. Porksheyan, E.V. Skvoretskaya and others. For example, E.V. Skvoretskaya, using the terminology of E.V. Gulyga notes: “According to the theory of the grammatical-lexical field, all means of expressing comparison interact with each other and function together, forming a comparative field.” O.V. Kravets maximally splits the field into microfields of different levels, analyzes real and unreal comparison as components of the microfield of similarity and concludes: “FSPC (functional-semantic field of comparativeness - M.K.) is a field mixed type. Its complex, multi-level structure makes it possible to distinguish microfields at the highest levels of the field according to the principle of a field with ontological stratification, and at lower levels- according to the principle of a field with epistemological stratification."

From the standpoint of the functional approach, the semantic essence of the category of comparativeness lies in the presence of “points of intersection with the categories of quality and quantity,” confirmation of which we see in the performance of comparison of the main functions - descriptive, characterizing, excretory, evaluative.

The FSK of comparison is characterized by a variety of ways of formally expressing comparative semantics. The comparison is observed at various language levels: lexical, morphological, syntactic. Methods of expressing comparative semantics are usually divided into conjunctions (using comparative conjunctions as if, exactly, as if, as if, as if etc.) and non-union. Comparisons can also be classified in terms of completeness, the presence of all components. Comparisons where there is an operator and a basis for comparison are usually called explicit in linguistics: comparative clauses, comparative turnover. Comparisons where the module and/or operator are omitted (not formally expressed, but implied) are called implicit: comparisons in the form of an application, predicate, instrumental case and other designs.

Summarizing and supplementing the above studies, let us present the structure of the FSK for comparison of the modern Russian language in the following form.

CoreFSK comparisons are made up of constructions that represent this semantics as fully as possible. In our opinion, these include subordinate clauses(full and incomplete) and comparative phrases, as the most common in the language and characterized by the largest number of structural and semantic features syntactic units. We believe that at the level of syntax and sentence construction, comparison is expressed most clearly and adequately; here, in the comparative construction, all the elements of its logical structure are presented. Periphery The FSK of comparison includes all other ways of expressing comparative semantics at the grammatical and lexical levels:

Non-Union complex sentences with parallelism of parts.

The binding part of a compound nominal predicate.

Prepositional-case combinations with prepositions like, similar etc.

Combining the comparative degree of an adjective or adverb with a noun. r. p.

Nouns in the instrumental case.

Comparative and superlative adjective or adverb.

Comparative adverbs.

Negative comparisons built by type no - but.

Comparisons in the form of applications.

Genitive constructions.

Adjective combination similar with a pretext on.

Comparisons using verbs of comparative semantics.

Comparisons in the form of adjectives.

Comparisons with compares. particles as if, exactly, as if, like and under.

Constructions that include demonstrative words.

Lexical comparisons using words in form, color, shape.

When analyzing linguistic elements of such a diverse structure, the functional-semantic approach is preferable, since “it helps to critically approach the traditional distribution of information about meanings based on a common conceptual category.” Nevertheless, it is also necessary to involve data obtained about one or another category of language using other approaches. As we noted earlier, “the combination of this method with linguocultural analysis makes it possible to comprehensively consider the functional-semantic category of comparison, manifested at various language levels: lexical, morphological, syntactic, and identify its ability to present the most accurate picture of the implementation of cultural connotations through language.”

So, the functional-semantic approach to the study of language phenomena involves a comprehensive consideration of multi-level linguistic means, united semantically. It allows you to see the field structure of the language, understand the rigor of the language system, and comprehend the reasons for operating with means of different levels when conveying meaning.

However, it is not enough to limit ourselves only to this approach when studying such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon as FGC comparison; We consider it very important to combine a functional-semantic approach with a linguoculturological one.

Bibliography

1. Romenskaya M.Yu. Microfield of indirect prohibition of the functional-semantic field of prohibition in the modern Russian language // Speech activity. Text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Rep. ed. N.A. Senina. Taganrog: Taganrog State Publishing House. ped. Institute, 2002. pp. 185-189.
2. Petrosyan M.G. Functional-semantic approach to the study of the category of existentiality // Collection of scientific works of graduate students and young teachers. Part 3: Philology. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 1999. pp. 98-111.
3. Admoni V.G. Grammatical structure as a construction system and general theory grammars. L.: Nauka, 1988. 239 p.
4. Bondarko A.V. Functional grammar. L.: Nauka, 1984. 134 p.
5. Ivanova I.P., Burlakova V.V., Pocheptsov G.G. Theoretical grammar Modern English: Textbook. M.: graduate School, 1981. 285 p.
6. Gulyga E.V., Shendels E.I. Grammatical and lexical fields in modern German. M.: Education, 1969. 184 p.
7. Gukhman M.M. Units of analysis of the inflectional system and the concept of field // Phonetics. Phonology. Grammar: Collection of articles. M.: Nauka, 1971. pp. 163-170.
8. Bondarko A.V. Functional-semantic field // Linguistics. Big encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartseva. M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. pp. 566-567.
9. Vlasova Yu.N., Zagoruiko A.Ya. Principles of identifying fields of different levels in a language // Language. Discourse. Text: International scientific conference dedicated to the anniversary of V.P. Malashchenko: Proceedings and materials. In 2 hours. Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2004. P. 47-50.
10. Modern Russian language: Communicative-functional aspect: Textbook. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2000. 163 p.
11. Kokina I.A. Categories of intensity and their stylistic and compositional functions in artistic speech(based on the language of A.P. Chekhov’s work “The Steppe”) // Collection of scientific works of graduate students and young teachers. Part 3: Philology. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 1999. pp. 77-84.
12. Ismagulova D.O. Modal microfield of possibility in the novel by I.S. Turgenev “Rudin” // Problems speech communication: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Ed. M.A. Kormilitsyna, O.B. Sirotinina. – Saratov: Publishing house Sarat. Univ., 2008. Vol. 8. Materials of the International. scientific-practical conf. " Current state Russian speech: evolution, trends, forecasts.” pp. 301-308.
13. Kim A.A. Linguistic expression categories of grading by adverbs of measure and degree // Units of language: functional-communicative aspect (Proceedings of the interuniversity conference). Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2001. pp. 143-145.
14. Korneva E.V. Benchmarking functional-semantic fields of reflexivity in the Russian and German languages ​​// Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Issue 1. Problems of philosophy of language and comparative linguistics. Voronezh: VSTU Publishing House, 1999. pp. 81-94.
15. Beskrovnaya V.V. Comparative approach to the study of the functional-semantic field of locativity // II International scientific conference dedicated to the anniversary of Professor G.F. Gavrilova: Proceedings and materials. At 2 o'clock. I . Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2005. pp. 33-35.
16. Agapova S.G. On the problem of functional-pragmatic fields // Units of language: functional-communicative aspect (Proceedings of the interuniversity conference). Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 2001. pp. 145-149.
17. Cheremisina M.I. Comparative designs Russian language; Rep. ed. K.A. Timofeev. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1976. 270 p.
18. Skvoretskaya E.V. System of means of expressing comparison-contrast in the Russian literary language XVIII century // Questions of syntax of the Russian language / Ed. V.M. Nikitina. Vol. 2. Ryazan: RGPI, 1974. P. 107-113.
19. Kravets O.V. Microfield of similarity (real comparison) of the functional-semantic field of comparativeness in the modern Russian language // Speech activity. Text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Rep. ed. N.A. Senina. Taganrog: Taganrog State Publishing House. ped. Institute, 2002. P. 100-105.
20. Nikolaeva A.V. On the relationship between the functional-semantic categories of comparativeness, quality and quantity // Units of language: functional-communicative aspect (Proceedings of the interuniversity conference) Part 1. Rostov-on-Don: RGPU, 2002. pp. 173-176.
21. Brusenskaya L.A. Semantic and functional aspects of interpretation of the category of number in the Russian language. Abstract... Dr. Philol. Sci. Krasnodar, 1994. 43 p.
22. Krylova M.N. A combination of functional-semantic and linguistic-cultural analysis in the study of modern Russian comparison // Innovations and traditions of science and education. Materials of the II All-Russian Scientific and Methodological Conference. Part 2 / Ed. S.V. Lesnikova. Syktyvkar: Syktyvkar state. Univ., 2011. pp. 277-286.

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

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

The semantic field has the following basic properties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional-semantic field “truth” in English aphorism (using the example of gnomic statements)

FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC FIELD "TRUTH" IN ENGLISH APHORISTS (BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF GNOMIC STATEMENTS)

The subject of our research is English-language aphorisms, which, according to the modern aphorist J. Geary, are included in the so-called gnomic corpus of sayings 1. The meaning that the authors of sayings put into aphorisms, maxims, maxims, judgments of a paradoxical nature and which is conveyed in certain semantic types sentences, “What I say is correct.” As a result, the presupposition of “enlightenment” determines the popularity of the aphoristic genre today, when people, due to lack of time, prefer to receive maximum information in a minimum amount. As a result, there is an increasing interest in various kinds of collections of worldly wisdom, guides on the path of life, in which one can find instruction or advice in any circumstances. E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov, studying aphorism in the linguistic and cultural aspect, propose to use the term “aphoristic level of language 2”.

An alternative to the level model of the language system in relation to the research material seems to us to be a field model.

G.S. Shchur defined a field as a way of existence and grouping of linguistic elements with common invariant properties 3 . A. M. Kuznetsov sets out his vision of the “field” problem in more detail in dictionary entry, where he describes a field as “a set of linguistic (mainly lexical) units, united by a commonality of content (sometimes also by a commonality of formal indicators) and reflecting the conceptual, subject or functional similarity of the designated phenomena” 4. In our opinion, what should unite all varieties of aphoristic fund naturally follows from the semantic presupposition “enlightenment”, namely the categorical situation in the sphere of modality - the imperative situation. A. V. Bondarko interprets it as “a typical content structure, the main elements of which are: the subject of the expression of will (C1), the subject-executor (C2), a predicate that reveals the content of the expression of will emanating from C1 and addressed to C2: an action (in the broad sense) is caused, aimed at transforming an as yet unreal situation into a situation that, according to the speaker’s intention must become real as a result of the causable action” 5. In our case, the sign of beneficence also acquires special significance. required element imperative situation 6. It is about the intended benefit, which is predicted by the addresser, and through the process of transformation described above, can be extracted by both the speaker and the addressee. The first expresses his value orientation, and the second one assimilates it, but due to the gnomic (timeless) nature of the statements, the “instruction” exists in a “potentially actualized form, that is, the necessity and expediency of always acting in a certain way is stated” 1 . For example: The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes. Tony Blair.

At the same time, it is not imperativeness itself that comes to the fore, but evaluativeness 1: “it is right, good, it is advisable to do this and not otherwise.” A. V. Bondarko classifies this type of imperative situation as peripheral. Nevertheless, both those and other statements are representatives of the FSP “truth” as an element of the semantic category of modality.

Domestic grammarians note the connection between the functional-semantic field and the speech act 8. Indeed, the choice of linguistic means corresponds to the semantic orientation of the utterance, “linguistic representation specific meanings is regulated by certain constants and semantic categories, appearing in certain variants, determined lexically and grammatically” 8 . In other words, in the pragmatic aspect, aphoristic microtexts are most appropriate to consider in the light of the field model of the language system.

As for the relations between the constituents within the gnomological block, we propose to consider them from the standpoint of the theory of invariance, the founder of which is considered to be R. Jacobson, who used the variant-invariant approach in phonology. In this work, an invariant is understood as “an abstract designation of the same entity in abstraction from its specific modifications of variants” 9. According to the authors of “Aphoristics”, the ancestor of the concepts “aphorism”, “maxim” and others may be the concept of “saying” 10. In reference publications a saying is formulated as “a complete expression of a specific, predominantly philosophical or practical-moral meaning within the limits of minimal intonation (phrase, period) or metrical (stanza) unity” 11 . In our opinion, it is very accurate to call the saying “a formula in which the social experience of an entire historical formation is concentrated,” while the appearance of an aphorism is accompanied by “a noticeable fluidity of social life and a high degree of development of individuality” 11. Hence the often anonymous nature of the saying or the authorship attributed to it; in aphorisms, as already indicated earlier, the personality of the author is clearly expressed. For comparison, we give an example of the saying A man S home is his castle and the aphorism Home is the girl S prison and the woman S workhouse. G. B. Shaw.

However, edification, instruction is always (often so explicit that it approaches a truism) present in the saying, and this undoubtedly makes it similar to an aphorism. It seems to us possible to consider the saying as an invariant in relation to the aphorism, which inherited from the first such characteristics as brevity, timelessness and didacticity. For example, Knowledge may have its purposes, but guessing is always more fun than knowing. W. A. ​​Auden.

An aphorism can be a prototype in relation to the actual aphorisms, maxims and maxims, that is, “the most characteristic case” 12 among other options.

A. V. Bondarko identified the features essential to characterize the concept of “prototype” in the light of the field theory of language, namely:

• 1) the greatest specificity is the concentration of specific features of a given object, “centrality,” in contrast to the sparsity of such features on the periphery (surrounded by the prototype);
• 2) the ability to influence derivative variants, the status of a “source of derivativeness”;
• 3) the highest degree of regularity in the functioning of the linguistic means under consideration is a possible sign, but not obligatory 13.

Here we find relevant the remark of J. Lakoff regarding the empirical research of proponents of the prototype theory (Berlin, Rosch, Hong, Mervis, B. Tversky): we are talking about basic level human interaction with external environment, which are determined by specific Gestalt-based perceptions, mental imagery and physical activity. At this level, according to Lakoff, a person acts most successfully and efficiently, and it is at this level that his experience is structured before the conceptual understanding of reality (before the formation of conceptual experience) 14.

Thanks to characteristic properties aphorism as a prototype of a gnomological corpus of statements (and in this work they are depth or philosophical character, brevity, non-triviality of judgment), the reader, first of all, experiences a slight “shock” from the fact that a new fresh vision of reality invades his mental space and is superimposed on everything that was in this space before, namely:

• - reality directly given to us
• - the way we understand it;
• - fictional situations, situations depicted in paintings, presented in films, etc.;
• - past or future situations as we understand them;
• - hypothetical situations;
• - sphere of abstract categories 14.

Let's look at the above using a specific example:

Keep away from people who try to little your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. M. Twain.

The immediate reality is the stereotype that you need to be “friends” with everyone.

Fictional situations are examples from literature and cinema that preach help to the morally weak.

Past or future situations - reflection on personal experience on this topic in the past and future.

Hypothetical situations of reflection from the field of “possible worlds”, that is, for example, how a person’s life would turn out if he were next to a person stronger / weaker than himself.

So, the invariant of aphorism as a whole is the saying, which is the ancestor of both aphoristic statements and proverbs, and catchphrases, and any reproducible complete phrases.

As T.V. Levina notes, “if by variation we mean the idea of in different ways expressing any linguistic entity as its modification, variety, or as a deviation from some norm, then what is modified is understood as some sample, standard or norm, and a variant as a modification of this norm or deviation from it. In this case, the opposition “variant invariant” is not introduced” 15.

`Sample', `standard', `norm' in this study any of these terms is applied to an aphorism as a carrier of protypical features in relation to the aphorism itself, maxim and maxim. In the light of the field theory of language, we propose to understand the prototype aphorism as an intension or core, the center of the “truth” field, while the distinctive features of a maxim or maxim will be on the periphery of this field. Our hypothesis is confirmed by the reasoning of R. V. Langakker, who, characterizing the protypical model, in which a category is defined through a prototype, that is, a schematic representation of its typical representatives, emphasizes that the entity corresponding to the prototype belongs to the central members of the category. Entities that differ from the prototype can be classified as its peripheral elements in the category if. they are in some respects similar to the prototype. The opposition between the central and peripheral members of the category forms it. internal structure. Membership in a category turns out to be relative, it depends on the distance of the element from the prototype” 16.

IN various studies dedicated to aphorisms like linguistic phenomena, their key characteristics were indicated in diachronic, linguocultural, phraseological, lexico-grammatical, semantic-syntactic, stylistic, and functional aspects. Based on research carried out by O. A. Dmitrieva, T. I. Manyakina, E. Yu. Vaganova, V. Yu. Vasechko and others, the most characteristic features of an aphorism as a prototype of aphoristic statements were identified, which, in our opinion, will be , form the core of the FSP “truth” in the gnomological corpus of the English language. This is brevity, completeness, depth of thought, non-triviality, the presence of an author. For example, The friendships which last are those wherein each friend respects the other"s dignity to the point of not really wanting anything from him. C. Connolly.

It is proposed to consider the following peripheral parameters of the FSP “truth”:

philosophical, definitive, generalized nature of semantic categories and these signs will indicate that we are actually looking at aphorisms. For example: Action is consolatory. It is the enemy of thought and the friend of flattering illusions. J. Conrad; The human self defines itself and grows through love and work.

postulativity (categorical), explicitly expressed authorization, that is, the content-conceptual information is brightly colored by subjective evaluative value 11 (terms of I. R. Galperin), these characteristics seem to us to be serious reasons for identifying maxims in a separate group. For example: No man in his heart is quite so cynical as a well-bred woman. W. S. Maugham; I"ve learned that warmth, kindness and friendship are the most yearned commodities in the world. The person who can provide them will never be lonely.

the predominance of the imperative situation over the evaluative one syntactic level the condition under which an aphoristic statement receives the right to be called a maxim. For example: Remember that when it really comes down to it, few things are worth getting upset about; Don"t worry about avoiding temptation...as you grow older, it will avoid you. W. Churchill.

In other words, in the first group the existential and gnomic categorical situations of the FSP “truth” find their optimal expression, in the second they are qualitative, and in the third they are imperative at the syntactic level. Cases of convergence of these situations are realized in aphoristic statements, which at this stage can only be called aphorisms .

English aphorism gnomic saying

Notes

• 1 A Blog by James Geary. URL: http://www. j amesgeary.com/gnomology.php.
• 2 Vereshchagin, E. M. Language and culture. Linguistic and regional studies in teaching Russian as a foreign language / E. M. Vereshchagin,

V. G. Kostomarov. Ed. 2nd, revised and additional M.: Rus. lang., 1976. P. 50.

• 3 See: Shchur, G. S. Field theories in linguistics / preface. M. M. Makovsky. Ed. 3rd. M.: Book. house "LIBROKOM", 2009. 264 p.
• 4 Kuznetsov, A. M. Field // Linguistics / ch. ed. V. N. Yartseva. 2nd (rep.) ed. "Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary» 1990 M.: Bolshaya Ross. encycl., 1998. pp. 380-381.
• 5 Theory of functional grammar. Temporality. Modality. L.: Science. Leningr. departments, 1990. P. 80.
• 6 Akimova, T. G. Beneficiality and ways of expressing it in English imperative statements // Functional typological direction in grammar. Imperiousness: tez. report conf. L., 1988. P. 7-9.
• 7 Theory of functional grammar. P. 86.
• 8 Problems of functional grammar. Categories of morphology and syntax in a statement. St. Petersburg : Nauka, 2000. P. 22.
• 9 Solntsev, V. M. Variation // Linguistics. pp. 80-81.
• 10 Fedorenko, N. T. Aphoristics / N. T. Fedorenko, L. I. Sokolskaya. M.: Nauka, 1990. P. 107.
• 11 Fundamental electronic library. Russian literature and folklore. Literary encyclopedia. URL: http://feb-web.ru/feb/litenc/encyclop/le4/le4-4401.htm.
• 12 Comrie, B. Tense. Cambridge etc., 1985. P. 19.
• 13 Bondarko, A. V. Theoretical problems Russian grammar. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 128-129.
• 14 Lakoff, J. Cognitive modeling. URL: http://kosilova.textdriven.com/narod/studia2/lakoff.htm.
• 15 Levina, T.V. Invariant in linguistics and the theory of invariant in language // Vestn. Kazakhstan, America. free un-ta. 2005. No. 2. URL: http:// www.vestnik-kafu.info/journal/2/53/.
• 16 See: Langakker, R.V. Model based on language use: trans. from English // Vestn. Moscow un-ta. Ser. 9. Philology. 1997. No. 4. This work is discussed in the text of the document, see: Bondarko, A.V. Decree. Op.
• 17 See: Galperin, I. R. Text as an object of linguistic research. Ed. 4th, erased. M.: KomKniga, 2006. 144 p.