Linguistic categories and their types. Text as a linguistic category

CATEGORIES GRAMMATICAL, specially organized and expressed sets of linguistic meanings (“grammes”) that have a privileged status in the language system; each language has its own grammatical categories, but many meanings that are essential for human experience turn out to be part of the grammatical categories of a very large number of languages (for example, the values of the number of objects, the duration of the action, the time of the action relative to the moment of speech, the subject and object of the action, desirability, etc. .).

To be considered a grammatical category, a set of meanings must have at least two properties, namely categorical and obligation. The first property (also known as mutual exclusivity, paradigmaticity, homogeneity, functionality, etc.) makes it possible to single out from the entire set of linguistic meanings those that are combined into categories; the second singles out among the linguistic categories those that are grammatical for a given language. A category can only be a set of values whose elements are mutually exclusive, i.e. cannot simultaneously characterize the same object (this property can be formulated in another way: each object at a certain moment can be assigned only one value from this set). Thus, the property of categorization or mutual exclusivity in the normal case is possessed by the values of physical age (a person cannot be both an old man and a child), gender, size, and many others. On the other hand, values such as color are not categories: the same object may well be colored in different colors at the same time.

Not all language categories, however, can be considered grammatical. For this, it is necessary that the category satisfies the second property, i.e. the property of obligation (in modern linguistics, this statement has received wide recognition, mainly after the works of R. Jacobson, but similar ideas have been expressed before). A category is obligatory (for some class of words) if any word from this class expresses any meaning of this category. So, in Russian, for example, the category of tense of the verb is obligatory: any personal form of the verb in the text expresses one of the meanings of this category (either the past, or the present, or the future tense), and there is no such personal form of the verb that could be would say that she "no time", ie. not characterized by time in grammatical terms.

The existence of mandatory categories in the language means that the speaker, intending to use a word in speech, is forced to express one of the meanings of a certain category with this word (i.e., to characterize the given word according to this category). So, choosing a personal form of a verb, a Russian speaker is obliged to characterize it by type, tense, mood, voice, person / number (or, in the past tense, gender) of the subject, since all these are grammatical categories of the Russian verb. The speaker is obliged to indicate the appropriate meanings of grammatical categories, even if this is not part of his own communicative intention - for example, he might not have specifically meant to designate the time of action. Of course, the speaker can still avoid indicating the time - but then he will no longer have to use a verb, but, for example, a noun, which in Russian does not have an obligatory category of time. Wed couple kind You came ~ your arrival, where the grammatical tense is expressed only in the first case; If desired, this can be done in the second case (cf. your past/future arrival etc.), but it is essential that if the speaker wants to evade the expression of time with a noun, he can freely do this without violating the grammatical requirements of the language, while in the case of the verb form this is impossible.

The grammatical categories of each language can be likened to a kind of questionnaire for describing objects and situations in a given language: the speaker cannot successfully complete this description without answering (whether he wants to or not) the questions of such a "grammatical questionnaire". According to the apt remark of R. Jacobson, "the main difference between languages is not what can or cannot be expressed, but what should or should not be communicated by the speakers." From this follows the importance of the role played by grammar in the creation of the so-called "naive picture of the world", i.e. that way of reflecting reality, which is the specificity of each language (and the culture behind it), since it is in the system of grammatical categories that the collective experience of native speakers of a given language is primarily reflected.

In different languages, the number of grammatical categories is different; there are languages with a very developed "grammatical questionnaire", in other languages the set of grammatical categories is very limited (languages that are completely devoid of grammatical meanings are still not attested, although their existence, generally speaking, does not contradict linguistic theory).

Along with the two main properties mentioned above, grammatical categories, as a rule, are also characterized by a number of additional properties. The scope of applicability of the grammatical category (i.e. the set of those words for which the category is obligatory) must be large enough and have natural boundaries (as a rule, these are large semantic-grammatical classes of words such as nouns or verbs or their subclasses such as transitive verbs, animate nouns etc.). On the other hand, the number of meanings of a grammatical category (grammes) is usually small, and they are expressed using a small number of regular indicators. These three additional properties make it possible, in particular, to distinguish between grammatical and so-called lexical obligation (the latter is always tied to a small group of words, and the corresponding meanings do not have regular indicators). So, in Russian, the choice of the meaning "child of the same parents" is necessarily accompanied by an indication of the sex of the child (respectively, brother or sister), however, we cannot talk about the grammatical category “gender of a relative” for the reasons listed above: the obligatory indication of gender in Russian is characteristic of only a small group of nouns (terms of kinship), and at the same time, there are no special indicators of male or female sex as part of these I have no words. Lexical obligation is a very common phenomenon, but it characterizes separate groups of the vocabulary of a given language and is not systemic.

The meaning of grammes of grammatical categories is a very complex object; entities called grammatical meanings (for example, "plural", "dative case", "past tense", etc.), as a rule, are much more complicated than lexical meanings. One should not identify the name of a gramme with its meaning (as often - voluntarily or involuntarily - do the authors of grammatical descriptions): behind the name of the "plural" type, in fact, there is a certain set of contextual meanings expressed by a set of formal indicators, while any indicator can have any of given values, and any value can be attributed to any of these indicators. Thus, in Russian, the number is expressed differently depending on the type of declension of the noun and other factors (cf. fingers,Houses,apples,studio etc.), and plural forms - regardless of what indicator is present in them - can express not only a simple set of objects, but also a class of objects as a whole ( ostriches are dying out), various varieties or varieties of objects ( precious metals,cheeses), a large number of ( sands), uncertainty ( are there any vacancies? » "at least one place"), etc. This situation is typical for most grammars, which, therefore, in the general case, are only a kind of labels denoting a rather complex correspondence between formal and meaningful elements of the language.

The contextual meanings of grammemes may include an appeal both to the properties of the surrounding world and to the syntactic properties of other words. Values of the first type are called semantic (or semantically filled, nominative, etc.); meanings of the second type are called syntactic (or relational), which reflects their main property - to serve as an expression of syntactic relationships between words in the text, and not a direct description of reality (compare, for example, gender grammes in Russian nouns of the type sofa and couch, reflecting only the difference in their matching models: a big sofa and large ottoman). Syntactic meanings, to one degree or another, are present in almost every grammatical category (for example, in the Russian language, the appearance of the singular in constructions with numerals of the type three Houses , twenty one house or in distributive constructions like advisers put on nose glasses). There are also grammatical categories in which syntactic meanings predominate or even are the only ones. Such categories are called syntactic; the most important of these are the gender and case of nouns, and in some cases also the voice and mood of verbs. Languages that do not have syntactic grammatical categories are called insulating(these are primarily the Austroasiatic, Thai and Sino-Tibetan languages of Southeast Asia, the Mande and Kwa languages of West Africa, etc.).

Most often, grammemes are expressed using morphological means - affixes (among which prefixes, suffixes, infixes, circumfixes and transfixes are distinguished), as well as alternations and reduplications. The morphological expression of grammes is characteristic of agglutinative and fusional languages (non-affixal morphological technique also plays an important role in the latter). The most striking examples of fusion languages are Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Lithuanian, many languages of the Indians of North America, etc.; languages that are equally agglutinative and fusional (such, for example, are many Uralic, Mongolian, Semitic languages, Bantu languages, etc.) are widespread. At the same time, there is also a non-morphological way of expressing grammatical meanings, in which these latter are conveyed by independent word forms (“functional words”) or syntactic constructions. Languages with a predominance of non-morphological techniques for expressing grammatical meanings are called analytic (such, in particular, are the Polynesian languages).

If a grammatical category is arranged in such a way that all its grammes are able to alternately join the stem of the same word, then such a category is called inflectional, and combinations of its grammes with the stem of a word are called grammatical forms of this word. The totality of all grammatical forms of one word forms its paradigm, and the word, understood as the totality of all its forms, is called a lexeme. Typical examples of inflectional categories are the case of a noun, the tense and mood of a verb, etc.: thus, in the normal case, the stem of each noun is combined with indicators of all cases of a given language, the stem of each verb is combined with indicators of all moods, etc. (non-systemic violations of this principle lead to the emergence of so-called defective paradigms, cf. the absence of the genitive plural form in the word cod or forms of the 1st person singular. numbers on the verb win In russian language).

Not all grammatical categories, however, form paradigms of grammatical forms: it is also possible that only one grammeme can be expressed in the stem of a word. Such grammatical categories do not oppose different forms of the same word, but different words (that is, different lexemes) and are called word-classifying. A typical example of a word-classifying category is the gender of nouns: for example, in Russian, each noun belongs to one of three genders, but Russian nouns do not have the ability to form “generic paradigms” (i.e., freely change the meaning of gender). On the contrary, in Russian adjectives, the category of gender, as it is easy to see, is inflectional (cf. paradigms like white ~ white ~ white etc.).

The main syntactic grammatical categories are gender and case (for the name) and voice (for the verb): the gender is associated with the morphological expression of agreement, and the case is associated with the morphological expression of control. In addition, both case and voice provide a distinction between semantic and syntactic arguments of the verb, i.e. such syntactic entities as subject and objects, and such semantic entities as agent, patient, instrument, place, reason, and many others. etc. Syntactic (consensual) categories also include the person/number and gender of the verb.

Most of the grammatical categories found in the languages of the world belong to semantic categories. The specific semantic categories of nouns are number and determination (or, in the "European" version, certainty/indefiniteness). The categories of number, determination and case closely interact and are often expressed by a single grammatical indicator (inflection); inflectional case-number paradigms are also characteristic of the Russian language. The category of number is usually represented by two grammes (singular and plural), but in a number of languages there is also a dual number, originally associated, apparently, with the designation of paired objects (such as lips, eyes, shores etc.); the dual number was in ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Old Russian, classical Arabic; it is also attested in modern languages: Slovene, Koryak, Selkup, Khanty, etc. Even more rare is a special grammatical expression for a set of three objects (ternary number) or a small number of objects (spider number): such grammes are found, for example, in languages New Guinea.

The system of semantic grammatical categories of the verb is very diverse and varies greatly in different languages. With a certain degree of conventionality, verbal categories can be divided into three large semantic zones: aspectual, temporal and modal. Aspect (or species) meanings include all those that describe the features of the deployment of the situation in time (duration, limitation, repetition) or highlight certain temporal phases of the situation (for example, the initial stage or result); in this sense, the well-known characterization of the aspect as the "internal tense" of the verb is correct. On the contrary, the grammatical category, traditionally called “time” in linguistics, only indicates the relative chronology of a given situation, i.e. whether it takes place before, at the same time, or after some other situation (“starting point”). The reference point can be arbitrary (and in this case we have the category of relative time, or taxis), but it can also be fixed; a fixed reference point coinciding with the moment of pronouncing the statement (“moment of speech”) gives the category of absolute time with three main grammemes: past, present and future tense. An additional indication of the degree of remoteness of the situation from the moment of speech (indication of "temporal distance") can increase the number of grammes of the category of time; developed systems for designating time distances are especially characteristic of the Bantu languages (Tropical Africa). Aspect and time are often expressed together in verb word forms (hence the traditional grammatical nomenclature, in which any aspect-tense verb form could be called “time”). The most typical combinations are the continuous aspect and the past tense (commonly called "imperfect"), as well as the limited aspect and past tense (commonly known as "aorist").

The verbal system can be characterized by a large number of aspectual grammars: for example, to the basic opposition of a long (durative, imperfective) and limited (perfective, dotted) aspect, often (as, for example, in many Turkic languages), at least a habitual (and / or multiple) aspect is added aspect and resultative aspect (cf. window open , Russian dial. is he drunk ). A difference analogous to the habitual aspect can be expressed lexically in Russian, cf. boy goes to school and boy walks to school. A special kind of resultative aspect is the perfect, which is very widespread in the languages of the world (for example, the perfect is found in English, Spanish, Greek, Finnish, Bulgarian, Persian and many other languages). On the contrary, “poor” aspectual systems (such as Eastern or Western Slavic) are characterized by the opposition of only two aspectual grammars (called perfect vs. imperfective, perfective vs. imperfective, complete vs. incompletive, etc.), but each of of these grammes has a very wide range of contextual meanings. Thus, in Russian, an imperfective grammeme can express duration, repetition, habituality, and even the perfect (cf. Maxim was reading « War and peace»); the choice of one or another interpretation depends on the context, the lexical semantics of the verb, and other factors. In languages with "rich" aspectual systems (such as Turkic, Polynesian or Bantu), all these meanings may differ morphologically.

The most complex and branched structure has a zone of verbal modality (giving the grammatical category of mood). Modal meanings include, firstly, those that indicate the degree of reality of the situation (surreal situations do not take place in reality, but are possible, probable, desired, conditioned, etc.), and secondly, those that express the speaker's assessment of the described situation (for example, the degree of reliability of the situation, the degree of desirability of the situation for the speaker, etc.). It is easy to see that evaluative and surreal meanings are often closely related to each other: for example, desirable situations always have a positive assessment of the speaker, surreal situations often have a lower degree of certainty, and so on. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the use, for example, of the conditional mood to express doubt or incomplete certainty, is characteristic of many languages of the world.

A special place among mood grammars is occupied by the imperative, which combines the expression of the speaker's desire with the expression of motivation directed at the addressee. The imperative is one of the most common grammars in natural languages (perhaps this meaning is universal). Mood grammars also have a large proportion of syntactic uses (for example, in many languages the predicate of a subordinate clause must take the form of one of the unreal moods; the same applies to the expression of questions or negations).

Adjacent to the mood is the grammatical category of evidentiality, which expresses the source of information about the situation being described. In many languages of the world, such an indication is mandatory: this means that the speaker must report whether he observed this event with his own eyes, heard about it from someone, judges it on the basis of indirect signs or logical reasoning, etc.; the most complex evidential systems are characteristic of the Tibetan languages and a number of American Indian languages, somewhat simpler evidential systems are found in the languages of the Balkan area (Bulgarian, Albanian, Turkish), as well as in many languages of the Caucasus, Siberia and the Far East.

LINGUISTICS

Theory of language. Russian language: history and modernity

Cognitive linguistics. Conceptual analysis of language units

N. N. Kryazhevsky

This article is devoted to one of the central problems in modern linguistics - linguistic categorization. The proposed semantic-cognitive approach for describing the categories and features of language categorization is relevant in the light of modern science and more fully characterizes the phenomenon under study. Within the framework of this theory, a prototypical approach is also considered, namely, the theory of prototypes by E. Roche: the concept of a prototype is given, examples of prototypes are given, and the prototypical structure of categories in the language is scientifically proven. The positive and negative aspects of the above theory are also analyzed.

This article is dedicated to language categorization as one of the central problems of modern linguistics. The semantic-cognitive approach chosen for analyzing the phenomenon of category and language categorization seems appropriate for this purpose due to its novelty and an ability to provide a more comprehensive description of the above-mentioned research object. The prototypic approach, the theory of prototypes by E. Rosh, to be exact, is described within this approach as well. The definition of the prototype is given and illustrated by examples, the prototypical structure of language categories is scientifically proven. The advantages and disadvantages of the above-mentioned approach are analyzed.

Keywords: linguistics, category, cognitive, semantic-cognitive, categorization, prototype, nucleus, periphery.

such as denotative-referential category theory, functional-semantic category theory, Ch. Fillmore's frame semantics, and cognitive (semantic-cognitive) category theory.

The fundamental statement put forward by J. Lakoff, one of the founders of cognitive linguistics, is that language uses a common cognitive apparatus. Therefore, linguistic categories must be of the same type as other categories in the conceptual system, and in particular, they must also exhibit prototypical effects and base-level effects.

Long before J. Lakoff, J. Bruner, an American cognitive psychologist, considered the problems of categorization, culture, and values in connection with language, through which culture influences the development of cognition. Referring to the Sapir-Whorf concept of linguistic relativity, he recalls that language can be viewed as a system of interrelated categories that reflects and fixes a certain view of the world.

The influence of culture on cognitive activity - perception, conceptual processes, the relationship between culture and language - was also studied by well-known American scientists M. Cole and S. Scribner. So, they showed that the operations of classification and categorization change under the influence of lifestyle, the taxonomic class plays a big role as the basis of classification, when people change their lifestyle, training makes it possible to realize that there are certain rules of classification, and makes it possible to master them.

According to E. S. Kubryakova, one of the leading domestic researchers of this

blematics, "questions of conceptualization and categorization of the world are the key problems of cognitive science." Today they are also basic for cognitive linguistics, in particular, cognitive semantics, recognized as the science of the theory of categorization.

It is obvious that one of the existing problems is the correlation between the differences that exist in the real world and the differences that are fixed by means of the language. The question of how the infinite variety of reality is covered by a finite number of linguistic forms has become one of the central ones in cognitive linguistics, in particular in prototypical semantics.

In it, the search for an answer relies on two assumptions:

2) categories have a prototypical structure - a certain internal organization, including the core and periphery. The presence of such a core allows categories to be formed not only by the complete coincidence of properties, but also by varying degrees of their similarity or similarity. There is no equality between the members of the categories, but there is a motivated connection with each other, and one can move from the core meanings to the peripheral ones by means of inferences. The category arises, exists and develops, focusing on the best sample (prototype) and establishing a certain hierarchy of features. It is also possible that a category develops from one prototype in several directions, which gives rise to its certain ambiguity and multifunctionality. In all these cases, close to everyday consciousness, relationships of the “family resemblance” type dominate, the idea of which belongs to L. Wittgenstein and was used by linguists in studying the process of categorization.

We can say that the central concepts in describing the process of categorization in cognitive linguistics are the concepts of the prototype and the object of the basic level. As you can see, the natural category can combine members with unequal status, that is, not completely repeating features. One of these members, the prototype, has a privileged position, being the best example of its class and, thus, most fully responding to the idea of the essence of association in one category or another. Around this prototype, the remaining members of the category are grouped.

It was E. Roche who was the first to develop a theory that later became known as the theory of prototypes and categories of the basic level, or simply prototype theories. During

creating her theory, she subjected the classical theory to a comprehensive critical analysis, since according to the classical theory, the features that determine the category are shared by all its members and therefore have an equal status in the category. Research on prototypical Roche effects has shown asymmetries between category members and asymmetric structures within a category. Since the classical theory did not provide for this, it was necessary to supplement it or propose another theory, which was done by E. Roche.

It was E. Roche in the mid-70s. 20th century first introduced the concept of category prototype. She called cognitive reference points and prototypes those members of a category or subcategory that have a special cognitive status - "to be the best example of a category". That is, a prototype is such a member of the category that embodies the features and characteristics characteristic of this category to the fullest extent, and all other members of the category are located on the periphery, closer or further from the core, depending on their similarity with the prototype. For example, a typical bird for Russia, i.e., the prototype of the category bird-sparrow, and on the periphery are a penguin and an ostrich, since they are atypical representatives of this category, i.e., they do not fully possess all possible features and characteristics. Center - typical representatives of the category, and the farther from the center, the less typical. Accordingly, E. Roche for the first time suggested that categories have some kind of internal structure, reflecting the realities of the objective world.

E. Roche's achievements have two sides: she formulated general objections to classical category theory and, together with her colleagues, simultaneously thought out reproducible experiments proving the existence of prototype effects and base-level effects. These experiments show the inadequacy of the classical theory, since the classical theory cannot explain the results obtained. However, prototype effects by themselves do not provide any particular alternative theory of mental representation.

According to R. M. Frumkina, the idea of “unequal rights” for members of the same category is not devoid of content. However, she criticizes the approach of E. Roche for the reason that not all objects can be described in terms of typical and atypical representatives of the category, prototype and periphery. For example, the following statement, according to E. Roche, will look strained, in her opinion: a runny nose is also a disease (but not a typical representative, but on the periphery).

It is important to note that in her later work, E. Roche acknowledged some incompleteness of her prototype theory and abandoned the original hypothesis that prototype effects directly reproduce the structure of categories and that categories look like prototypes.

J. Lakoff rightly believes that the category structure plays an essential role in the processes of thinking (reasoning). In many cases, prototypes function as points of cognitive reference of various types and form the basis for inference (Rosch, 1975a; 1981). However, it must be realized that prototype effects are secondary. They are formed as a result of the interaction of various factors. In the case of a gradation category such as a tall man, whose content is vague and without clear boundaries, prototypical effects may arise from membership gradation, while in the case of a bird, which is clearly delineated from others categories, prototype effects are generated by other features of the internal structure of categories.

One of the most interesting confirmations of this hypothesis is contained in the works of L. Barsalow. L. Barsalow studied what he calls "ad hoc categories", that is, categories that include not universally valid and long-established concepts, but accidental categories formed to achieve some actual goals. Such categories are built on the basis of cognitive models of the object of study. Examples of such categories include things that need to be taken out of the house in case of fire; possible birthday gifts; the totality of what needs to be done to receive guests on Sundays, etc. Barsa-low notes that such categories are characterized by a prototypical structure - a structure that does not always exist, since the category is non-conventional and arises only in certain problem situations. Barsalow argues that in such cases the essence of the category is determined primarily by goals, and the structure of goals is a function of the cognitive model. This approach was also supported by Murphy and Medin 1984.

E. Roche repeatedly emphasized that categories exist in a system and such a system includes opposing categories. She used opposing categories in an attempt to create a basic level categorization theory. Categories of the base level, according to her, are characterized by maximum discrimination - the perceived similarity between members of the category in them is maximized, while the perceived similarity between opposing categories is minimized.

She and her colleagues tried to capture what they called cue validity. The significance of a signal is the conditional probability that an object belongs to a given category, given that it has some property (or "signal"). The best signals are those that indicate a category at a given level with a 100% probability. For example, the presence of gills in a living creature with a probability of 100% proves that it is a fish. That is, the significance of this signal for the base category fish is 1.0, and it is 0 for other categories.

However, P. F. Murphy proved that if the categorical significance of a signal is determined for objectively existing features, then it will not be possible to single out basic categories with its help. The individual significance of category signals for the higher level will always be greater than or equal to the individual significance of signals for the base category, which will prevent the latter from being clearly singled out as the most common for structuring human knowledge. This shows some obvious incompleteness of the signal significance theory.

The categorical significance of a signal may correlate with the categorization of the baseline. However, it cannot distinguish base-level categories; they must already be isolated so that the definition of categorical significance of the signal can be applied in such a way that such a correlation takes place.

In conclusion, we can say that, according to J. Lakoff, linguistic (linguistic) categories, as well as conceptual categories, demonstrate prototypical effects. They exist at all levels of language, from phonology to morphology and from syntax to vocabulary. The presence of these effects is considered by Lakoff as evidence that linguistic categories have the same character as other conceptual categories. Therefore, the language uses general cognitive categorization mechanisms.

Notes

1. Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things: What the categories of language tell us about thinking. M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004. S. 86.

3. Cole M., Scribner S. Culture and thinking. M.: Progress, 1977. 262 p.

O. N. Kushnir. Dynamics of linguocultural concepts verbalized by borrowed prefixes.

6. Aaguta O. N. Logic and linguistics. Novosibirsk: Novosib. state un-t, 2000. 116 p. URL: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/laguta-00.htm.

7. Aakoff J. Decree. op. S. 63.

8. Ibid. S. 64.

9. Ibid. S. 66.

10. Frumkina R. M. Psycholinguistics: textbook. for stud. higher textbook establishments. M.: Ed. Center "Academy", 2001. S. 102-103.

11. Aakoff J. Decree. op. pp. 70-71.

12. Ibid. pp. 79-80.

13. Ibid. pp. 80-81.

14. Ibid. S. 98.

UDC 81 "" 1-027.21

O. N. Kushnir

DYNAMICS OF LINGUO-CULTURAL CONCEPTS VERBALIZED BY BORROWED PREFIXES (BY THE EXAMPLE OF THE MACRO CONCEPT "ACP, OPPOSITION")

Linguo-conceptological re-etymologization in the aspect of dynamic synchrony turns out to be a productive method in the analysis of macro-concepts verbalized by borrowed prefixes. In the proposed article, such an analysis is given on the example of the macro-concept "confrontation, confrontation".

Linguoconceptological reetymologization in the aspect of dynamic synchrony appears to be an efficient method of analyzing macroconcepts verbalized by borrowed prefixes. Such analysis is presented in this article on the example of the macroconcept "confrontation, opposition".

Key words: dynamic linguo-conceptology, linguo-conceptological re-etymologization, significative concept.

Keywords: dynamical linguoconceptology, linguoconceptological reetymologization, denotation al concept.

The appearance and / or activation of numerous borrowings in modern Russian is mainly associated with such well-known reasons as the need to name new realities, the need for specialization of concepts, the tendency to save language resources, etc. (see, for example,). However, the development of the Russian concept sphere is associated not only with fairly obvious nominative needs or linguistic patterns, but also with profound changes in the sphere of linguistic consciousness, which constitute the main subject of dynamic linguistic conceptology.

The difficulties of studying these deep changes are due to the very nature of the concept, which finds support in the internal form of the keywords that verbalize it, which, acting as “the manifestation of the etymon”, is “always the meaning that directs the movement of the meaningful forms of the concept”, “an invariant that approaches the concept, but... there is no concept yet.” Not only Russian, but also a borrowed word as a means of verbalization of the concept is “evidence of Russian intuition”, which, like any object of scientific research, cannot be exhaustively revealed, and any tangible scientific progress cannot be achieved without the appeal of linguistics to related areas of knowledge about man and society, especially in linguoculturology (cf., for example, the following remark, with which it is impossible not to agree: “The science of the Russian language (and linguistics in general) is increasingly feeling its dependence on the presence (or absence) of knowledge from other related sciences of man).

We turned to significative concepts undergoing significant changes, verbalized by borrowed prefixes. Concepts related to the semantics of prefixoidal and prefixoidal morphemes, including borrowed ones, remain out of the field of view of researchers (for example, prefixal and prefixoidal derivatives are not reflected in the fundamental work of V. G. Kostomarov "Linguistic Taste of the Epoch"). Meanwhile, the study of the linguo-conceptual content of such concepts seems to be especially significant in the context of dynamic linguo-conceptology, based on the material of modern times (the turn of the 20th-21st centuries), when many new lexemes appeared, including borrowed prefixes and prefixoids (and new concepts correlating with them) , actualization, de-actualization or rethinking of "old" concepts.

Turning to prefixes as a means of verbalization of linguocultural concepts considered in dynamics allows us to see some shifts in the significative space of Russian linguoculture. In this sense, the method of linguo-conceptological re-etymologization, well known to Russian conceptology (see, for example:), turns out to be very productive.

As an example, let us turn to the analysis of the macroconcept “Confrontation, confrontation”, which belongs to the group of vector concepts that we conditionally distinguish (naming is proposed by us in accordance with the concept of the vector type of antonymy).

Such concepts, best viewed through the prism of the semantics of derivatives prefixed with anti-, are one of the essential means of

Category (in linguistics) Category in linguistics, linguistic meanings that are correlated and interconnected on the basis of a common samantic attribute and representing a closed system of subdivisions of this attribute. For example, K. of a person in Russian (combining 3 meanings based on the feature - participation in a speech act), K. of the genus Rus. adjectives, lexical K. color terms. K. differ in the nature of their semantics (denotative, semantic-syntactic, etc.), in the degree of their obligatory nature in a given language (grammatical, non-grammatical), and in the methods of expression (morphological, lexical, syntactic). Semantically close suffixes may be obligatory in some languages and optional in others. So, K. of locative relations with nouns is realized in the Lak language in K. in a series of local cases (katluin - "to the house", katluinmai - "towards the house", katluykh - "from above the house past" and before.), and in Russian language, the corresponding meanings are expressed by separate lexical units. Grammatical (mandatory) quotations form rigid hierarchical systems in the language. For example, in the Hungarian language, the noun expresses K. the number of possessiveness, the person and number of the owner, the relative, the number of the relative, the case. B. Yu. Gorodetsky.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 .

See what "Category (in linguistics)" is in other dictionaries:

I Category 1) groups, rank, degree. 2) see Categories, Category in linguistics. II Category in linguistics, linguistic meanings that are correlated and interconnected on the basis of a common samantic attribute and representing ... ...

In Wikipedia, categories are used to systematize articles, grouping them according to the most important features. For more on how this works, see Wikipedia:Category. For a guide to categories, see Wikipedia:Categorization. For an overview of existing ... ... Wikipedia

Number in linguistics, a grammatical category denoting in a sentence the number of participants in an action (subjects and objects) using morphological means. The main opposition in the category of Ch. is uniqueness ‒ ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Modality in linguistics, a conceptual category that expresses the attitude of the speaker to the content of the statement, the target setting of speech, the relationship of the content of the statement to reality. M. can have the meaning of statements, orders, wishes, ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Models in linguistics are used in structural linguistics when describing a language and its individual aspects (phonological, grammatical, lexical and other systems) to clarify linguistic concepts and relationships between them, which helps to identify ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Functional semantic-stylistic category, FSSK- - a kind of text categories (see), reflecting the functionally stylistic differentiation of speech (typology of texts). FSSK is a system of multi-level linguistic means (including textual ones), united functionally, semantically and stylistically ... ... Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language

Number (in grammar) is a grammatical category that expresses a quantitative characteristic of an object. The division into singular and plural is perhaps a relic of that distant era when counting was rarely used in practice, and ... ... Wikipedia

Linguistics- (linguistics, linguistics) the science of natural human language in general and of all languages of the world as its individual representatives. The place of linguistics among other sciences. Linguistics and social sciences. Because language is the most important...

concept- The concept 1) a thought reflecting in a generalized form the objects and phenomena of reality by fixing their properties and relationships; the latter (properties and relations) appear in the concept as general and specific features correlated with classes ... ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary

A generally accepted definition of the text still does not exist, and answering this question, different authors point to different aspects of this phenomenon: D.N. Likhachev - to the existence of its creator, who implements a certain idea in the text; OL Kamenskaya - on the fundamental role of the text as a means of verbal communication; A. A. Leontiev - on the functional completeness of this speech work. Some scholars recognize the text only in written speech, others find it possible that oral texts exist, but only in monologue speech. Some recognize the existence of a text in dialogic speech, understanding it as the realization of any speech plan, which may be just a desire to communicate. Thus, according to M. Bakhtin, “a text as a semiotic complex refers to utterances and has the same features as a utterance. It is this point of view of the scientist that is accepted in linguistics and psycholinguistics, and the text is considered as thematically coherent, semantically unified and holistic in terms of intent speech work. [Bakhtin M.M. 1996, p. 310]

I. R. Galperin argues that “A text is a work of a speech-creative process that has completeness, a work objectified in the form of a written document, consisting of a name (title) and a number of special units (superphrasal units), united by different types of lexical, grammatical, logical, stylistic connection, having a certain purposefulness and pragmatic attitude. "[Galperin, I.R. 1981]

Thus, I. R. Galperin understands the text not as oral speech fixed on paper, always spontaneous, unorganized, inconsistent, but as a special kind of speech creation, which has its own parameters that differ from those of oral speech.

The appearance of the term "Category of text" is due to the desire of modern linguistics and stylistics to identify the structure of the text, which cannot be done relying only on elementary units of analysis - words and speech techniques. Each text category embodies a separate semantic line of the text, expressed by a group of linguistic means, organized in a special way into a relative intra-text integrity. Text categories (meaningful, structural, structural, functional, communicative), being essentially different, do not add up to each other, but are superimposed on each other, giving rise to a kind of single formation, qualitatively different from the sum of its components. Coherence and integrity as text properties can be considered autonomously only for the convenience of analysis, somewhat abstractly, since both of these qualities exist in unity within the framework of a real text and presuppose each other: a single content, the meaning of the text is expressed precisely by linguistic means (explicitly or implicitly).

The basis of the universal categories of the text is integrity (plan of content) and coherence (plan of expression), which enter into relations of complementarity, diarchy with each other.

The largest researcher of the linguistic organization of the text, I. R. Galperin, argued that “one cannot speak about any object of study, in this case about the text, without naming its categories” [Galperin, 1981, p. 4].

According to the classification of I.R. Galperin, the text has such categories as:

1. Integrity (or wholeness) of the text

2. Connectivity

3. Completeness

4. Absolute anthropocentricity

5. Sociological

6. Dialogical

7. Deployment and sequence (illogic)

8. Static and dynamic

10. Aesthetic text

11. Imagery

12. Interpretability

In terms of the topic under consideration, the most important category to consider is dialogue.

The dialogical nature of a literary text as a side of a literary work is studied in a series of monographic works by M.M. Bakhtin. And it is connected, in his opinion, with another quality of a literary text - with the infinity, openness, multi-layeredness of its content, which does not allow an unambiguous interpretation of the text, as a result of which highly artistic literary works do not lose their relevance for many decades and centuries. In addition, the dialogical nature of the text, according to M.M. Bakhtin, is also manifested in the fact that any text is a response to other texts, since any understanding of a text is its correlation with other texts.

As you know, M.M. Bakhtin distinguished linguistics as the science of language and metalinguistics as the science of dialogical speech. In this regard, he noted that “linguistics studies “language” itself with its specific logic in its generality, as a factor that makes dialogic communication possible, while linguistics consistently digresses from the dialogical relations themselves” [Bakhtin, 1979: p.212]. This statement of Bakhtin should be perceived, first of all, as an extended interpretation of the traditional term "dialogue", in connection with which it is quite reasonable to attribute to Bakhtin a new broad understanding of dialogue, which has the fundamental properties of universality [Zotov, 2000: p.56]. The basis of this understanding is the recognition of the fact that a statement, if considered not in isolation, but in relation to other statements, turns out to be an extremely complex phenomenon. “Each individual utterance is a link in the chain of verbal communication, on the one hand, absorbing the previous links of this chain, and on the other, being a reaction to them. At the same time, the utterance is connected not only with the previous, but also with the subsequent links of verbal communication. As for the second case, the connection of statements is manifested here in the fact that any statement is built taking into account possible responses” [Bakhtin, 1979: p. 248]. On the basis of this proposition, Bakhtin argues that dialogical relations of this kind cannot be reduced to either purely logical or purely linguistic ones, they presuppose language, but they do not exist in the system of language [Ibid: p. 296].

MM. Bakhtin noted that the specificity of dialogical relations in their extended interpretation needs a special philological study, since dialogical relations are a phenomenon much more capacious than the relations between the replicas of a compositionally expressed dialogue [Bakhtin, 1979: 296]. At the same time, one cannot but admit that traditional dialogue and dialogue in the Bakhtinian understanding have the same basis and represent a certain type of speech activity, a description of the nature of which can be taken as the basis for further linguistic research, ultimately oriented towards the typology of dialogue. One of the latest developments undertaken in line with Bakhtin's dialogue formulates the problem in the form of a theory of dialogue and introduces a special term "dialogistics", thus giving even more weight and significance to the ideas of dialogical communication. Its authors trace the origins of this problem in the works of Bakhtin's older contemporaries, such as, for example, A.A. Meie, M.M. Prishvin, A.A. Ukhtomsky, some of whom used their own terminology, in fact, identifying dialogue with conversation.

As is known, based on the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin in modern linguistics, a direction arose, defined as intertextuality and aimed at identifying relationships between statements within the boundaries of a certain macrotext, understood in this case as a text space not limited by any spatio-temporal framework. Such an interaction of statements, following Bakhtin, is usually called dialogic [Zotov Yu.P., 2000: 5].

The essence of the dialogical interaction of utterances within the boundaries of literary communication can be considered from various points of view, and first of all from the point of view of the purpose of a particular utterance to one or another specific or non-specific person. The "predestination" of the text to a specific addressee, which the author has in mind when writing this or that literary work, seems to be the very factor that ultimately determines the laws of text construction. The way the author imagines the future recipient turns out to be the decisive moment in the end, setting a peculiar tone for the entire text structure. Despite the importance of this textual element, as such, it has not yet been singled out and has not been traced in various parts of the macrotext, which in this particular study means the English-language poetic text of certain chronological periods in its entirety of existing works without a special emphasis on idiolect features. . Meanwhile, it is already a priori quite obvious that individual genre text samples, such as epitaphs, dedications, or, for example, poems for children, have such a high degree of textual purpose (or even addressing) that it completely determines the laws of their construction. [Solovyeva E.A. 2006, p.17]

Thus, the problem of text dialogics (or in the newest formulation, dialogistics), as far as the scope of research within the competence of text linguistics, is to consider special dialogic relations that determine the position of the author in text construction and depend on the purpose of the literary text he creates to that or to another addressee. Of no small importance is the establishment of the nature of such dialogic relations within the boundaries of a single macrotext, which is recognized as an indispensable condition for its genre and style originality.

The status of each language category is determined by its place in the row of another category.

By nature, all language categories can be:

ontological- categories of objective reality (category of number)

Anthropocentric- categories born in the mind of a person (categories of assessment)

relational- categories expressed in the structure of the language, for organizing speech (case category)

Oppositions are:

According to the relations between the members of the opposition:

- equivalent (equal pole)

A: :B: :C: :D

R.p. ending and B

D.p. ending e C

- private(only two forms)

Ex: dog - dog s

- gradual(degrees of comparison)

Ex: æ - α: - /\

By the number of members within the opposition:

Ternary (three) - gender, time, person

Polycomponent (more than three components) - case.

39 Types of grammatical categories. Structure and types of relations between members of grammatical categories (only about oppositions)

A grammatical category is a set of homogeneous grammatical meanings represented by rows of grammatical forms opposed to each other. The grammatical category forms the core of the grammatical structure of the language. The grammatical category has a generalized meaning. Grammatical categories are in close interaction with each other and show a tendency to interpenetrate (for example, the category of person connects verbs and pronouns, the category of aspect is closely related to the category of tense), and this interaction is observed not only within the framework of one part of speech (the category of person connects the name and verb)

Morphological- are expressed by lexical and grammatical classes of words (significant parts of speech) - categories of aspect, voice, time, number. Among these categories are inflectional and classificatory.

inflectional- categories whose members are represented by forms of the same word within its paradigm (in Russian, the case category of the name or the person category of the verb)

Classification- these are categories whose members cannot be represented by forms of the same word, i.e. these are categories that are inherent in the word and do not depend on its use in the sentence (animate / inanimate nouns)

Syntactic- these are categories that belong primarily to the syntactic units of the language (the category of predicativity belongs to the syntactic unit - the sentence), however, they can also be expressed by units related to other language levels (word and form that participate in the organization of the predicative basis of the sentence)