Lexicology, textbook (N.A. Kuzmina)

Lexicology (Greek lexicos - related to the word) - a branch of linguistics that studies vocabulary language, vocabulary. Disputes about whether the vocabulary is inherent in the system did not subside until the 70s. 20th century and sometimes flare up now. The definition of a system accepted by most linguists is as follows: “A system is an integral object consisting of elements that are in mutual relations» (V.M. Solntsev). Compare also: “A system is a well-organized set of interrelated and interdependent elements” (A.S. Melnichuk).

General properties of any system:

Integrity. The supreme role of the system as a whole, not only articulating separate sections, but also coordinating the processes occurring in them;

Complexity (discreteness). Any system consists of separate sections (subsystems), which in turn have a fairly complex internal organization;

Orderliness. Mandatory is the constant interaction of subsystems, in their connections and relationships influencing each other.

Language is natural system and as such it has all these characteristics. They are found in level stratification of the language. The language level is a relatively autonomous subsystem, although interacting with others, containing a limited set of units that are indecomposable from the point of view of this subsystem and the rules for their connection. How many levels are there in a language? This is the subject of ongoing controversy. It is obvious that the levels are correlated with the units of the language. Most scientists believe that there are four main levels: phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactic. There is a hierarchy of levels: there are higher and lower levels. Relations between units of adjacent levels are means-function relations (constitutive-integrative): units of the lower level are the means of registration of units of the higher level, in units of the higher level, any subordinate units are able to perform their functions in full. Thus, the units of the higher level are constituted from the units of the lower level, the units of the lower level are integrated into the units of the higher level.

Lexical level lies between morphological and syntactic, therefore, there are 3 aspects of the characteristics of the word: 1) a lexical level unit with its own characteristics; 2) a complex of morphemes; 3) component sentences, realizing in it the fullness of its functions.

Features of the organization of each level: relative autonomy (existence of own laws) and isomorphism (Greek isos. - equal, morphe - form) - the presence of structural (formal) regularities of the same type for all levels. To include four types of system relationships: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, variant and manifestation relations(only for bilateral language units). paradigmatic – relations of co-opposition, relations of choice. In vocabulary, it is primarily synonymy, antonymy. Syntagmatic relationships are relationships of compatibility. Relations variability connected with the opposition of language and speech. All units exist in two statuses: as invariant units that form the basis of the language system, and as their variants, representing these abstract units in speech: phoneme/allophone, morpheme/allomorph, etc. In vocabulary: word/LSV. Invariants are typical abstract units in abstraction from living functioning, the result of scientific abstraction. Options - psychological reality directly observed and perceived facts. Finally, there are relationships demonstrations , characterizing the connection of the expression plan (PV) and the content plan (PS): PV (form) manifests PS (meaning). For vocabulary, the law of asymmetry of a linguistic sign (Kartsevsky's law) is extremely important: remaining equal to itself for a long time, a linguistic sign seeks to expand either its expression plane (formal variation) or its content plane (polysemy).

The isomorphism of language levels also confirms the presence of a number of general concepts, in particular for phonetics and vocabulary: opposition, strong and weak positions, neutralization positions, differential and integral features etc.

Features of vocabulary as a system. Let's see if the vocabulary satisfies common definition system: 1) is it divided into smaller subsystems that are ordered in a certain way (is the requirement of discreteness and ordering satisfied), and 2) is there a global connection between all lexical subsystems (integrity)?

1) Inside lexical system there are various ordered subsystems: a polysemantic word, semantic fields, lexico-semantic groups (LSG), synonymic series, antonymic pairs, oppositions such as "original - borrowed", "old - new", "active - passive". All these are groups of words connected by systemic relations of paradigmatics, syntagmatics, and variance. However, the consistency of vocabulary is manifested not only in the presence of certain groups of words or fields, but also in the very nature of the use of words, in their functioning. So, for example, words with loved ones or opposite meanings have similar syntagmatics (used in the same positions: true, correct, false(thought), sure, inevitable(death). Against, different meanings ambiguous words, as a rule, are used in different - differentiating - contexts: deep well - deep voice. Moreover, an attempt was made (I.A. Melchuk, Yu.D. Apresyan, A.K. Zholkovsky, etc.) to systematize all non-free word compatibility, reducing it to several dozen deep meanings (lexical functions). So, deep(gratitude), crackling(freezing), pouring(rain), notorious(rascal) dead(silence), indisputable(authority), rough(mistake), dazzling(white), round(fool) - all these combinations implement the semantics the highest degree manifestation of the property (the so-called MAGN 'very' function). Thus, the lexical subsystem has the property of discreteness and relative ordering of individual groups of words. Let us now consider whether there is a connection between these groups and, consequently, whether the integrity condition necessary for the recognition of the lexicon by the system is satisfied.

2) The rule of 6 steps is known (Yu.N. Karaulov): if you present all the vocabulary in the form of a card file and pull out one card, then it will inevitably be pulled all file cabinet. It is impossible to find such a pair of words in the dictionary, between which there is no semantic connection. Moreover, a chain linking any two words in the dictionary never takes more than six steps to a common element. How many steps do you think great before funny? The aphorism states: one step. Is it so? Consider the semantics of words according to the explanatory dictionary.

Great- 1) superior general level, the usual measure, meaning, outstanding.

Funny - 3) trans. ridiculous, awkward.

Meaning – meaning, what the subject stands for.

Ridiculous- not justified by common sense meaning.

GREAT FUNNY

(meaning) (ridiculous)

MEANING

So from great before funny two steps!

And so any arbitrarily chosen words in the dictionary are related. You can check it yourself. Thus, there are no and cannot be isolated associations in the lexicon, because each word is connected with others by dozens, hundreds of threads. The process of semantic transition from one word to another is endless, it covers the entire vocabulary.

However, Vocabulary is a special kind of system. She possesses the following features, which distinguish it from other language systems (subsystems):

The modern Russian lexical system has developed historically and reflects the centuries-old experience of the people: it contains separate units and entire subsets that bear traces of the previous stages of language development, thus, the system itself contains the properties of the juxtaposition of units that are different in their individual genetic (chronological) characteristics , as well as stylistic coloration: cf. sir, citizen, master, comrade, colleague, uncle, bro.

The lexical system consists of separate sections (subsystems) - semantic fields, lexico-semantic groups, synonymous series, etc., interacting with each other, but existing under the auspices of the system as a whole and obeying its laws. These sections themselves have a certain internal organization.

The lexical system is open , this openness is different for different areas: some of them relatively easily accept innovations, others are almost strictly conservative. The lexical composition of the language mobile - we cannot answer the question of how many words there are in the language at one time or another. Some words constantly (at this very moment) enter the system, and it is not always possible to say whether the use of some new word was a single, individual, or whether this is already a fact of the system. It is not always possible to answer the question whether a certain word is obsolete or whether it is not even included in passive margin (green shop, stitch boots, house charity). AT lexical composition language, it is fundamentally impossible to draw a sharp line between what belongs to its contemporary layer and what does not belong to it. The vocabulary is the most permeable language area.

When innovations enter one or another section of the system, certain changes occur in it, a new unit is not simply included in this section: its presence affects the ratio and quality of the nearest units (synonymous, antonymic connections, motivational relations change). Wed changes in the circle of modern names of men: comrade ↔ mister(remember the lawsuits at the dawn of perestroika over the fact that someone was “called” a comrade).

All these features of vocabulary are associated with one global difference from other language levels: vocabulary is the only subsystem of the language that is directly related to reality. The social structure has changed - will the number of phonemes or suffixes react to this? But the vocabulary will respond quickly.

This is the uniqueness of vocabulary as a subsystem of the language.

It can also be said that in this subsystem are extremely strong asystemic(centrifugal) trends. They are connected

with potential the language system itself, with the opposition of language/speech. Let us give as an example the phenomenon of potential words - words “which do not exist, but which could be if historical chance so desired” (G.O. Vinokur): * kitiha, giraffe, hippopotamus, ostrich; *caller, repeater, interrogator, answerer; *quotation mark, skobyst, zapyatist, tyreshnik('specialist in punctuation').

with the mobility of the semantics of the word, the effect of the uncertainty of the lexical meaning, the blurring of the periphery, the ability of the word to convey not only systemic meanings (fixed in the dictionary), but also individual, personal ones.

influenced by social factors. An impulse is born - a social need - and the language (especially its most mobile layer - vocabulary) reacts to it instantly. The impulse comes from outside, from the needs of society. But technical means implementations are provided by the language itself. Having been born, the word grows into systemic relations with other words, that is, the system automatically adjusts in accordance with its internal capabilities (cf. the group words PR - public relations specialist).

with the "memory" of the language - the preservation of relics of the previous stage. Obsolete words and meanings, although they lose their activity, are stored in the dictionary for some time and can be revived, albeit with a slightly changed meaning (cf. the history of words governor, parliament, duma and under.). This is the continuity, the conservatism of the language.

Everything as a whole makes the language system not a frozen geometric construction, so sweet to a lazy mind, but a living, complex evolving formation.

Once again to the strict definition of the word form

N. V. Pertsov

The conceptual and terminological apparatus of linguistics needs to be corrected: many linguistic terms are understood and used differently in different linguistic directions by different linguists (we can recall the old aphorism: “There are as many linguistic schools how many linguists there are). Therefore, in this area of humanitarian knowledge, we can state a very sad situation. Development of a relatively strict conceptual system- like the one that was proposed by I. A. Melchuk for morphology in his five-volume fundamental monograph "Course of General Morphology (descriptive and theoretical)" (the last, fifth, volume should be published in 2000; Russian translation of the first three volumes - [ Melchuk 1997-2000]) - can bring linguistics closer to exact sciences and thereby contribute to the clarification of hidden linguistic phenomena, the connections between them and previously known ones, between scientific concepts and linguistic reality, can contribute to the prediction of deductively possible facts and the filling of logically permissible “cells” that are not represented in the linguistic material to date.

Within the framework of this methodology, we will consider one of the most important concepts of linguistics, completely clear and comprehensible for the linguistic intuition of an inexperienced native speaker (“a person from the street”) and at the same time elusive and not amenable to formalization - the concept of the WORD. People manipulate words as if words were physical objects, accessible to the senses. In this regard, we can recall the famous episode from the great novel by Francois Rabelais, when travelers hear words that once sounded during naval battle and thawed with the advent of the thaw, like blocks of ice. For the naive linguistic consciousness, even for the consciousness of an illiterate savage, the word is by no means scientific concept, such as a phoneme, morpheme, subject, etc., but a completely real and tangible thing. And at the same time, it is one of the most difficult linguistic concepts, eluding definition for centuries despite numerous attempts to clarify it.

This concept hides three possible “readings”: segment(roughly speaking, a piece of text, limited on both sides by spaces or punctuation marks), word form(minimal linguistically autonomous sign), lexeme(the set of all word forms or analytical forms that have the same lexical meaning, i.e., are described by the same dictionary entry). The second of these concepts - the word form - will be considered below from the point of view of its strict definition, formulated on an axiomatic basis, i.e., on the basis of a set of initial concepts that - within the framework of this conceptual system - are accepted as undefined - indefinibilia, - and derivatives concepts defined at the appropriate moment. Two fundamental properties of word forms that distinguish them from word form components and from word combinations are: (i) their relative autonomy in the speech chain (a word form is able to form a complete utterance - a speech expression between two full pauses - either (i) by itself, or (ii) together with a word form of type (ii), satisfying in this last case a set of some criteria specific to the corresponding language - criteria of weak autonomy - see below); (II) their minimality (the word form cannot be completely divided into autonomous units), which property determines the cohesion of significant components (morphs) in the composition of the word form. Our definition of the word form is based on

conceptual apparatus of Melchuk and is in many respects similar to its definition in [Melchuk 1997:176], but differs from the latter in some important points.

Before proceeding directly to a review of concepts related to the definition of a word form, let's consider examples of word forms against the background of other language expressions that are not word forms. Namely, let's take a look at following groups expressions:

(G1) Great pictures! Thrones of eternal snow!(Pushkin).

(G2) eat a dog, sit in a galosh, give an oak tree; blue stocking, flower bed egg, apple

discord, grated kalach

(D4) (a) louisa, professor, romance, freedom, noon, incomprehensible, lazy, reading,

let's go, go, everywhere, always, never, or where, I, me, we, him

(b) from, k, thanks(pretext) , in, if, and, or

(G5) tower- [the basis of the word form tower], -ovate[adjective suffix], - itz

[noun suffix - tigress],under-, over-

(D6) English. I' m [I am], he' d [he had/would], I' ll [I shall / will], she' s [she is/has], we' re [we

are],should a [should have], gonn a [going to], could' ve [could have]

The expressions of the group (G4) - word forms - differ from the expressions of the first three groups by their minimality from the point of view of the plan of expression (property II above); and from the expressions of groups (G5) and (G6) - by their autonomy (property I). At the same time, the expressions of the group (G6) (more precisely, the underlined fragments of these expressions), despite their complete non-autonomy, from an intuitive point of view, are also included in the number of word forms. The indicated data of our intuition must be taken into account in the definition of the word form.

The definition of the word form, which will be proposed in this report, is based on the following concepts, interpreted in accordance with [Melchuk 1997]: statement; segment sign; properties of signs - strong autonomy, separability, distributive variability, permutability, relocatability, weak autonomy; alternation; representability of signs, their signifiers and signifiers. Based on Melchuk's monograph, we will allow ourselves to confine ourselves to an explication of these concepts and brief comments on some of them. (We also borrow from [Melchuk 1997] some examples.)

utterance = speech expression capable of speaking naturally

conditions between two complete pauses.

Segmental sign = a sign whose signifier is a chain of phonemes.

Segmental signs are contrasted, on the one hand, with suprasegmental signs (for example, tonal signs), and, on the other hand, with operation signs (apophonies, reduplications, conversions).

A strongly autonomous sign = a sign capable of forming an utterance. (As group (D4b) shows, by no means all word forms are strongly autonomous, and not only official ones. For example, in French personal verb forms are not strongly autonomous - to the question Q’ est- ce qu’ ils font? can't answer Lisent, but only Ils lisent`They are reading'.)
The X sign is separable from the strongly autonomous Y sign in a strongly autonomous

context "X + Y" or "Y + X"=X can be separated from Y by a strongly autonomous sign Z - so that the corresponding expression ("X + Z + Y" or "Y + Z + X") is correct and in it the semantic relation between X and Y is the same as in the original expression. (In accordance with this criterion, prepositions are separable: To home ~ to the green house.)

The sign of X is distributively variant = X can appear in different expressions

together with the strongly autonomous signs Y and Z belonging to different parts speech, and the semantic relation between X and Y and between X and Z in the corresponding expressions is the same. (In accordance with this criterion, distributively variant particles or, is it : He told us about it ~He told us about it; Did the brother write this letter yesterday? ~ Did your brother write this letter yesterday? ~ Did your brother write this letter yesterday? ~ Did your brother write this letter yesterday? As for the sign - ka, which grammarians usually refer to as particles, this sign is not distributively variant; for its affixal status, see [Pertsov 1996]).

The sign X is interchangeable in combination with the strongly autonomous sign Y = the signs X and Y

can be swapped while maintaining the correctness of the expression and the semantic relationship. (In accordance with this criterion, the particle - still: He did arrive~ He did come. Rearranging French personal verb forms in the following contexts: Vous le lui donnes ~ Donnez- le- lui!; il peut ~ Peut- il?; nous pouvons ~ Pouvons nous? )

Sign X is relocatable = X can be moved from a strongly autonomous sign Y to some other sign Z in the same expression - while maintaining the correctness of the expression and the semantic relationship. (According to this criterion, the particle is displaced would: If he told us about it… ~ If he told us about it… Pronominal clitics in French are limitedly movable: Cette histoire, il l’ entends raconter; Jean lui a fait porter ces livres par son domestique.)
The sign X is weakly autonomous = X has at least one of the properties indicated in items 4-7, i.e., separability, distributive variability, permutability, or relocatability.
Alternation (phonological) = operation of changing chains of phonemes /f/ => /g/ .
The language unit E is representable through language units F and G = E can be represented as the union of units F and G according to the rules of the given language.

The definitions in paragraphs 4-7 define the criteria, or properties, for the weak autonomy of a linguistic sign. We emphasize that these criteria are not absolute, they are gradual: one or another unit can have one or another property of weak autonomy to a greater or lesser extent.

So, the French negative particle ne ol has a very limited separability: for it, only pronominal adverbs can act as strongly autonomous separators rien, jamais and pressure- and only before the infinitive: Ne rien < jamais> jet;Ne pressure rien manger. Separability of the Russian prefix element - something- the ability to separate from the landmark sign by means of a preposition ( to someone) is so insignificant that it does not allow the corresponding unit to acquire the status of a word form. It is curious that affixes and affixoids can acquire separability in specific contexts - for example, some prefix elements in the situation of a coordinating tmesis, cf. French le para- ainsi que ferromagnetism, en socio- ou bien en psycholinguistique.

The property of separability can be illustrated by the example of matching the Russian sign floor and French mi-, meaning 'half': the former is separable, the latter is not, cf. mid-September ~ half past September ~ mi- September(separate mi- nothing is possible from a landmark sign).

Now we have full set conceptual means for formulating a definition.

The segment sign X is called the word form = For X, one of the two conditions is satisfied - (1) or (2):

(1) (a) X is sufficiently autonomous in a given language [i.e. i.e. either strongly autonomous, or

satisfies any criteria of weak autonomy] and at the same time:

(b) X is not representable in terms of other sufficiently autonomous signs, and

autonomous signs;

(2) X is representable through some word form X' and some alternation in the given language, and X can be replaced in any expression by the word form X' without violating the correctness and without changing the meaning of the original expression.

Item (2) in this definition substantially coincides with point 2 of Definition 1.23 in [Melchuk 1997: 176].

Paragraph (1a) excludes stems and affixes that do not have autonomy, i.e. units of the group (G5), from the number of word forms.

Paragraph (1b) excludes free combinations and analytical forms from word forms, i.e. expressions of the group (G1) and (G3), and paragraph (1b) excludes their idiomatic combinations - phrasemes, i.e. expressions of the group (G2).

Paragraph (2) leaves among the word forms such units as the consonant endings of English auxiliary verbs- see expressions of the group (G6), - among which there are expressions that are completely devoid of any autonomy (say, the form ’ m absolutely non-autonomous, and the form ’ s- in meaning is or has- has separability: The drive home today’ s been really easy).

What is the degree of sufficiency of the weak autonomy of a sign, on which paragraph (1a) of our definition is based, in order for this sign to qualify for the status of a word form? We do not know a general answer to this question.

The proposed definition differs from the definition of I. A. Melchuk, as it seems, in greater transparency: Melchuk - to determine the language word form - had to resort to the additional concept of speech word form; moreover, in his recursive definition of a word form, the recursion basis is not singled out, which makes this definition, strictly speaking, incorrect. In our definition, also recursive, as is clear from his point (2), this flaw is overcome.

Literature

Melchuk 1997-1000 – Melchuk I. A. Course of general morphology (theoretical and descriptive). - T. 1 - 1997, T. 2 - 1998, T. 3 - 2000. - M .: Languages of Russian culture.

Pertsov 1996 – Pertsov N. V. Element – ka in Russian: word form or affix? // Russian Studies. Slavistics. Indo-European studies. M.: Indrik, 1996. - S. 574-583.

Mel'cuk 1993-1998 - Mel'cuk I. A. Cours de morphologie generale (theorique et descriptive).

1 - 1993, V. 2 - 1994, V. 3 - 1996, V. 4 - 1998. - Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal, CNRS Editions.

from the Greek autonomia: autos - itself and nomos - law) is a principle of medical ethics based on the unity of the rights of a doctor and a patient, involving their mutual dialogue, in which the right of choice and responsibility are not concentrated entirely in the hands of the doctor, but are distributed between him and the patient. According to the A principle, the patient independently makes a decision regarding treatment after being informed by the doctor about his state of health. Complex medical interventions are carried out with the written consent of the patient, familiarized with their purpose and possible results. The ethical basis of the principle of A. is the concept of the autonomy of the individual - its independence and the right to self-determination.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

AUTONOMY

from Greek - itself, - the law; self-government) is a characteristic of highly organized, primarily living and social, systems, which means that the functioning and behavior of such systems is determined by their internal foundations and does not depend on the influence of the external environment.

When analyzing autonomy, the focus is usually on the problem of independence. Independence is an essential sign of autonomy, but far from defining. The autonomy of objects and systems is, first of all, their action on internal grounds, according to internal motives, according to the laws of functioning of their internal organization. Accordingly, the system is built basic concepts expressing the idea of autonomy. When characterizing autonomous living systems, the problem of internal activity during their functioning and behavior acquires paramount importance. This inner activity is the most important and initial principle in understanding the living. It was noted and often absolutized by all natural science and philosophical trends that sought to reveal the secrets of the living. For example, vitalism proclaimed the existence of a special “ life force» (entelechy, psyche, archaea) in living systems, which determines their features; The problem of activity is now being considered at the level of microphysics.

Uncovering the nature of activity is one of the most important tasks of science, while in modern research two aspects are distinguished - energy (power) and information (signal). The activity of systems is based on their energy, on the ability to accumulate and release significant amounts of energy. The energy issues of living things are now actively considered in the framework of biophysical and biochemical research. The informational aspect concerns management issues, that is, the interaction of structural principles in the organization of the living.

The internal activity of autonomous systems is ordered and channeled in a certain way. The problem of canalization is the problem of self-determination of autonomous systems. The analysis of the latter is based on the development of such concepts and categories as "management", "goal", "purposefulness", " Feedback”, “diversity”, “decision making”, “needs”, “interests”, “efficiency”, etc.

The meaning of autonomy, the internal activity of systems should be considered in terms of evolutionary teaching; autonomy complex systems and subsystems is justified when it contributes to improving the efficiency of the functioning and behavior of systems as a whole, expanding the range of their existence.

The idea of activity absorbed something new that was developed in the course of the formation of the theory of probability and its numerous applications to the knowledge of real processes and that is fixed in the concept of randomness. The idea of randomness is opposed to the concept of rigid determination with its interpretation of causality as a certain external force acting on bodies and causing changes in them.

The idea of activity presupposes the presence of internal dynamics and self-determination of the functioning and behavior of systems. The application of the idea of autonomy to social processes led to ideas about freedom as a condition and prerequisite for the development of society and man to the promotion of the ethical principle of autonomy: “Autonomy is ... the basis of the dignity of man and any rational nature” (Kant I. Soch., vol. 4, part 1. M., p. 278). Autonomous systems are very diverse: they speak of a variety of functions, a high specialization of autonomous systems, manifested in a variety of actions in relation to environment and other autonomous systems. Autonomy is important for the organization of society, when national-territorial associations independently perform the functions state power. Self-government of such national-territorial units is justified when it serves to improve their internal organization, mobilize them internal forces and reserves and increases the efficiency of the functioning of the whole, which includes these autonomous units.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Aspects of learning vocabulary. Branches and sections of lexicology

Lexicology (Greek lexicos - relating to a word) is a section of linguistics that studies the vocabulary of a language, vocabulary. Disputes about whether the vocabulary is inherent in the system did not subside until the 70s. 20th century and sometimes flare up now. The definition of a system accepted by most linguists is as follows: “A system is an integral object consisting of elements that are in mutual relations” (V.M. Solntsev). Compare also: "System - in a certain way an organized set of interrelated and interdependent elements” (A.S. Melnichuk).

General properties of any system:

Integrity. The supreme role of the system as a whole, not only articulating individual sections, but also coordinating the processes taking place in them;
Complexity (discreteness). Any system consists of separate sections (subsystems), which in turn have a fairly complex internal organization;
Orderliness. Mandatory is the constant interaction of subsystems, in their connections and relationships influencing each other.

Language is a natural system and as such has all these characteristics. They are found in the level stratification of the language. The language level is a relatively autonomous subsystem, although interacting with others, containing a limited set of units that are indecomposable from the point of view of this subsystem and the rules for their connection. How many levels are there in a language? This is the subject of ongoing controversy. It is obvious that the levels are correlated with the units of the language. Most scientists believe that there are four main levels: phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactic. There is a hierarchy of levels: there are higher and lower levels. Relations between units of adjacent levels are means-function relations (constitutive-integrative): units of the lower level are the means of registration of units of the higher level, in units of the higher level, any subordinate units are able to perform their functions in full. Thus, the units of the higher level are constituted from the units of the lower level, the units of the lower level are integrated into the units of the higher level.

Lexical level lies between morphological and syntactic, therefore, there are 3 aspects of the characteristics of the word: 1) a lexical level unit with its own characteristics; 2) a complex of morphemes; 3) an integral part of the proposal, realizing in it the fullness of its functions.

Features of the organization of each level: relative autonomy (existence of own laws) and isomorphism (Greek isos. - equal, morphe - form) - the presence of structural (formal) regularities of the same type for all levels. To include four types of system relationships: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, variant and manifestation relations(only for bilateral language units). paradigmatic – relations of co-opposition, relations of choice. In vocabulary, it is primarily synonymy, antonymy. Syntagmatic relationships are relationships of compatibility. Relations variability connected with the opposition of language and speech. All units exist in two statuses: as invariant units that form the basis of the language system, and as their variants, representing these abstract units in speech: phoneme/allophone, morpheme/allomorph, etc. In vocabulary: word/LSV. Invariants are typical abstract units in abstraction from living functioning, the result of scientific abstraction. Options are psychological reality, directly observable and perceived facts. Finally, there are relationships demonstrations , characterizing the connection of the expression plan (PV) and the content plan (PS): PV (form) manifests PS (meaning). For vocabulary, the law of asymmetry of a linguistic sign (Kartsevsky's law) is extremely important: remaining equal to itself for a long time, language sign seeks to expand either its plan of expression (formal variation) or the plan of content (polysemy).

The isomorphism of language levels also confirms the presence of a number of general concepts, in particular for phonetics and vocabulary: oppositions, strong and weak positions, positions of neutralization, differential and integral signs etc.

Features of vocabulary as a system. Let's see if the vocabulary satisfies the general definition of the system: 1) is it divided into smaller subsystems that are ordered in a certain way (is the requirement of discreteness and ordering satisfied), and 2) is there a global connection between all lexical subsystems (integrity)?

1) Within the lexical system, there are various ordered subsystems: a polysemantic word, semantic fields, lexico-semantic groups (LSG), synonymic series, antonymic pairs, oppositions such as "original - borrowed", "old - new", "active - passive". All these are groups of words connected by systemic relations of paradigmatics, syntagmatics, and variance. However, the consistency of vocabulary is manifested not only in the presence of certain groups of words or fields, but also in the very nature of the use of words, in their functioning. So, for example, words with similar or opposite meanings have similar syntagmatics (they are used in the same positions: true, correct, false(thought), sure, inevitable(death). On the contrary, different meanings of a polysemantic word, as a rule, are used in different - differentiating - contexts: deep well - deep voice. Moreover, an attempt was made (I.A. Melchuk, Yu.D. Apresyan, A.K. Zholkovsky, etc.) to systematize all non-free word compatibility, reducing it to several dozen deep meanings (lexical functions). So, deep(gratitude), crackling(freezing), pouring(rain), notorious(rascal) dead(silence), indisputable(authority), rough(mistake), dazzling(white), round(fool) - all these combinations implement the semantics of the highest degree of property manifestation (the so-called MAGN 'very' function). Thus, the lexical subsystem has the property of discreteness and relative ordering of individual groups of words. Let us now consider whether there is a connection between these groups and, consequently, whether the integrity condition necessary for the recognition of the lexicon by the system is satisfied.

Great- 1) exceeding the general level, the usual measure, meaning, outstanding.

Funny - 3) trans. ridiculous, awkward.

Meaning – meaning, what the subject stands for.

Ridiculous- not justified by common sense meaning.

GREAT FUNNY

(meaning) (ridiculous)

MEANING

So from great before funny two steps!

However, Vocabulary is a special kind of system. It has the following features that distinguish it from other language systems (subsystems):

The modern Russian lexical system has developed historically and reflects the centuries-old experience of the people: it contains individual units and entire subsets that bear traces of the previous stages of language development, thus, the system itself contains the properties of juxtaposition of units that are different in their individual genetic (chronological) characteristics , as well as by stylistic coloring: cf. sir, citizen, master, comrade, colleague, uncle, bro.
The lexical system consists of separate sections (subsystems) - semantic fields, lexico-semantic groups, synonymous rows etc., interacting with each other, but existing under the auspices of the system as a whole and subject to its laws. These sections themselves have a certain internal organization.
The lexical system is open , this openness is different for different areas: some of them relatively easily accept innovations, others are almost strictly conservative. The lexical composition of the language mobile - we cannot answer the question of how many words there are in the language at one time or another. Some words constantly (at this very moment) enter the system, and it is not always possible to say whether the use of some new word was a single, individual, or whether this is already a fact of the system. It is not always possible to answer the question whether a word is obsolete or whether it is not even included in the passive stock ( green shop, stitch boots, house charity). In the lexical composition of a language, it is fundamentally impossible to draw a hard line between what belongs to its modern layer and what does not belong to it. The vocabulary is the most permeable language area.
When innovations enter one or another section of the system, certain changes occur in it, a new unit is not simply included in this section: its presence affects the ratio and quality of the nearest units (synonymous, antonymic connections, motivational relations change). Wed changes in the circle of modern names of men: comrade ↔ mister(remember the lawsuits at the dawn of perestroika over the fact that someone was “called” a comrade).

This is the uniqueness of vocabulary as a subsystem of the language.

It can also be said that in this subsystem are extremely strong asystemic(centrifugal) trends. They are connected

with the potentialities of the language system itself, with the opposition of language/speech. Let us give as an example the phenomenon of potential words - words “which do not exist, but which could be if historical chance so desired” (G.O. Vinokur): * kitiha, giraffe, hippopotamus, ostrich; *caller, repeater, interrogator, answerer; *quotation mark, skobyst, zapyatist, tyreshnik('specialist in punctuation').
with the mobility of the semantics of the word, the effect of the uncertainty of the lexical meaning, the blurring of the periphery, the ability of the word to convey not only systemic meanings (fixed in the dictionary), but also individual, personal ones.
influenced by social factors. An impulse is born - a social need - and the language (especially its most mobile layer - vocabulary) reacts to it instantly. The impulse comes from outside, from the needs of society. But the technical means of implementation are provided by the language proper. Having been born, the word grows into systemic relations with other words, that is, the system automatically adjusts in accordance with its internal capabilities (cf. the group words PR - public relations specialist).
with the "memory" of the language - the preservation of relics of the previous stage. obsolete words and the meanings, although they lose their activity, are stored in the dictionary for some time and can be revived, albeit with a slightly changed meaning (cf. the history of words governor, parliament, duma and under.). This is the continuity, the conservatism of the language.

Everything as a whole makes the language system not a frozen geometric construction, so sweet to a lazy mind, but a living, complex evolving formation.

test questions

Using knowledge from the course "Introduction to Linguistics", define the language system and its properties: orderliness, integrity, discreteness and hierarchy. What levels (subsystems) are distinguished within the language as a system of systems?
What is the specificity of vocabulary as a special level of language? What are its features? Is vocabulary a system? How do systemic and asystemic tendencies interact in vocabulary?
Name the subject and tasks of lexicology. Describe the two main aspects of its study - system-semasiological and sociolinguistic.
Tell us about the main sections of lexicology. What does lexicology and semasiology study? What is the difference between semasiological and onomasiological approaches to the word? What are the tasks of general, particular, comparative, applied lexicology? What do descriptive (synchronic) and historical (diachronic) lexicology study? What related sciences are involved in the description of vocabulary?

Tasks

The language system is not a blind copy of the surrounding world. It has "white spots", gaps - areas of reality that do not have their own designation. For example, all fingers on the hands have names (thumb, index, middle, ring, little finger). What about toes? Maybe only the little finger and the big one! There is a word ice rink, but there is no designation for a strip of ice on the pavement on which children ride in winter; have a word newlyweds, but there is no word for spouses who already have experience family life. Why is this happening? Track the lacunarity on the material of words that name a person according to the properties of character and temperament: cheerful person – jovial, brave - daredevil, evil - the villain, happy - lucky. Continue this row. What concepts are lacunar, not indicated by separate words?
Some words become obsolete, leave the language, and gaps remain in their place in the system. Via historical dictionary or Dahl's dictionary, establish what concept the words denoted wuy,stern, yatrov. Which kinship terms you know are on the way to becoming obsolete?
Another illustration of the discrepancy between language and reality is phantom words. The simplest example is mermaid,beech,brownie, ghoul and other evil spirits. Why did the word become a phantom phlogiston? Try to give your own examples (at least look at children's literature or science fiction!).
One of the types of phantom words distinguished by scientists, futurologisms (futurologism, literally - « budeslovie » ) are new words that denote not yet existing, but possible phenomena. Some of them later found their realities and came into wide use, such as robot(invented by the Czapek brothers) or cyberpunk, invented by the American science fiction writer William Gibson in 1984 Turn on your imagination - try to create your own futurological ideas.

Literature

Main

Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M., 1977. § 1-7.
Kuznetsova E.V. Lexicology of the Russian language. M., 1989. Chapter 1.
Modern Russian: Phonetics. Lexicology. Word formation. Morphology. Syntax: textbook / ed. ed. L.A. Novikov. SPb., 1999. Section "Lexicology", § 2.
Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language. Lexicology. M., 1990. § 1-2.
Linguistic encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1990 (See: Vocabulary, Lexicology).
Norman B.Yu. Playing on the edge of language. M., 2006. S. 12-33 (See Appendix).
Epstein M.N. Types of new words. Classification experience // "Topos". Literary and Philosophical Journal [ Electronic resource] (See Attachment).

Additional

Vasiliev L.M. Modern linguistic semantics. M., 1990. S. 23-27, 55-66.
Melnichuk A.S. The concept of system and structure in the light of dialectical materialism // History of Soviet linguistics. Some aspects general theory language. Reader. M., 1981. S. 76-79.
Shvedova N.Yu. The lexical system and its reflection in explanatory dictionary// Russian Studies Today. Language system and its functioning. M., 1988. S. 152-166. Or: Shvedova N.Yu. Theoretical results obtained in the work on the "Russian semantic dictionary» // Questions of linguistics. M., 1999. No. 1 (section "Vocabulary as a system"). pp. 3-16.
Solntsev V.M. Language as a system-structural formation. M., 1977 .

Lexical features of the Spanish-language press

1.2 The word as a unit of the lexical system of the language and its main properties

The lexical meaning of the word, being an element of the general language system, nevertheless, has sufficient independence.

According to the method of nomination, that is, according to the nature of the connection between the meaning of the word and the object of objective reality, two types are distinguished lexical meanings-- direct, or basic, and indirect, or figurative (5, p. 113). Direct meaning is called because the word that possesses it directly indicates the object (phenomenon, action, quality, and so on), that is, it is directly correlated with the concept or its individual features. The main (or main) meaning of a word is usually called the one that is less than all other meanings due to the properties of its compatibility. Direct meaning, which acts as the main, stable nomination of an object in the modern period of language development, is also called primary.

The indirect (or figurative) meaning of a word is that, the appearance of which is due to the emergence of comparisons, associations that unite one object with another. The figurative meaning appears as a result of the transfer of the direct (main) designation of the subject to new item. Portable values are private, they are called secondary.

According to the degree of semantic motivation, two types of word meanings are distinguished: non-derivative (non-motivated, primary) and derivative (that is, motivated by the primary, initial meaning, which is secondary). If we look at the meaning of the word nakip from these positions, then all three of its meanings will turn out to be derivative, motivated.

According to the degree of lexical compatibility, free and non-free meanings are distinguished (2, p. 93). If the compatibility is relatively wide and independent, then such values are called free. For example, the meanings of the words head, nose, eye are free; table, petal, spring; fairy tale, argument, luck and many others. However, the "freedom" of the lexical compatibility of such words is a relative concept, because it is limited by the subject-logical relations of words in the language. So, based on subject-logical connections, it is impossible to combine the word hand with words like funny, smart, deep, and so on. And, nevertheless, the meanings of these (and many other) words from the lexico-semantic point of view can be called free.

Another group of meanings includes the meanings of words, the lexical compatibility of which is already limited not only by subject-logical relations, but also by linguistic ones proper. Such values are called non-free. Among the lexically non-free, two groups of word meanings are distinguished: phraseologically related and syntactically conditioned with a variety - constructively limited (or conditioned).

A phraseologically related meaning is one that is realized only under the conditions of certain combinations. given word with a narrowly limited, stable range of lexical units (1, p. 65). The connections of words in these combinations are no longer determined by subject-logical relations, but by the internal laws of the lexical system of the language. So, in the word pitch, the meaning of “full, absolutely hopeless” appears only if it is combined with the words hell or darkness. The boundaries of phraseologically related meanings are narrower: the circle of words in combination with which these meanings are realized is, as a rule, small, often reduced to one combination.

As a result prolonged use only as part of narrowly limited combinations did some of these words lose their primary direct meaning and ceased to be perceived as nominative units.

According to the nature of the nominal functions performed, two types of lexical meanings of the word can be distinguished: proper nominative and expressive-synonymous.

The nominative meanings of words can be those that are used primarily to name objects, phenomena, qualities, actions, and so on. In the semantic structure of words with a similar meaning, as a rule, additional features (for example, evaluative ones) are not reflected. However, in the process of subsequent use, these signs may appear.

An expressive-synonymous meaning is one in which the emotional-evaluative feature is the main one. Words with this meaning arose as additional expressive and evaluative names of already existing nominations. Words with such meanings exist independently in the language and are reflected in dictionaries, but are perceived in the minds of native speakers by association with their nominative synonyms.

So, the typology of lexical meanings is based on three main types of relations: conceptual and subject connection, the relationship of words to each other, and the degree of motivation of the meaning. Identification of different types of lexical meanings helps to better understand the semantic structure of the word, that is, to understand the nature of systemic intra-word connections.

Analysis and comparison of lexico-semantic fields "Freedom" and "Freedom" in English and Russian languages

Modern linguistics proceeds from the position that language is a system organized in a certain way, i.e. ...

The use of phraseological units in the language of the detective genre (on the example of Agatha Christie's work)

Many linguists point to the fact that phraseological units should be considered as such only if there is a corresponding single word that is a synonym for the entire combination. Among them, Sh. Bally...

Lexico-grammatical groups of words in store names

The lexical meaning of a word is its content, its correlation with the object or phenomenon of reality. The lexical meaning of a word, being an element of a general language system, nevertheless has sufficient independence ...

Teaching a culture of communication English language

It is possible to identify the main issues directly related to the methodology of teaching the culture of foreign language communication, which it is advisable to combine into four groups. The first group is about...

Vocabulary Commenting Problem Soviet era at the lessons of the Russian language and literature (on the material of textbooks on literature for grades 5-6)

Vocabulary is the most mobile, changeable part of the language. It sensitively responds to all changes in external, non-linguistic reality: in material and cultural life society, in the social order, in relations between people. But it does not mean...

Problems of translatability in the light of linguistic description

When we talk about the meaning of certain words in the translated original and about their transmission by certain words of the language into which the translation is being made, we naturally cannot digress from that context...

Implementation systems approach to the selection and organization of vocabulary in V.G. Budai "Russian from the alphabet" and Yu.G. Ovsienko "Russian language for beginners"

The main goal of working on vocabulary in initial stage- the formation of a vocabulary necessary and sufficient for elementary communication in the educational and everyday spheres, as well as providing lexical content for mastering grammar ...

Semantic transformations in the vocabulary of the modern French

As you know, the word is the main element of the language. The word denotes things, the word highlights signs, actions, relationships. Anyone who has not even studied linguistics will immediately say that words mean something, have meaning, and that meaning ...

The word as a unit of typological description

The word was characterized as one of the elements of the standard language, as a two-sided unit of the lexical sphere. Without touching on the philosophical and linguistic definition of the word (and thus the language in general), which belongs to the competence of general linguistics...

word structure

The word - this basic bilateral, integrally formed and independently existing unit of the language - has long attracted the attention of linguists. Unlike units of other levels ...

The essence of language as a sign system

From the definition "language is a means of communication between people" it follows that the main purpose of language is communication (of thoughts, intentions, feelings, etc.), i.e. communicative function, implemented in a number of its derivatives ...

Typology of English abbreviations based on correspondence on the Internet and blogs

The word is basic lexical unit language, which is a sound or a complex of sounds that has a meaning and is used in speech as an independent whole Shansky N.M. Lexicology of the modern Russian language....

Phraseologisms with an anthroponym component in English

Arising in ancient times, anthroponyms have become an integral part of culture, pushing its development to a new level. The undeniable necessity of personal names for society and the complexity of their study led to the emergence of a special science ...

Language forms of manifestation of lexical meanings in the semantic structure of words with the designation of age